Specific performance decided on special oath .
Agar koi party court ma opposition party ko qasam khane ki offer karti ha or opposition party qasam ( special oath ) utha leti hai tu court case ka fori faisla kar de gi. Isi bina per iss case main faisla hoa.
The case **Abdul Sattar Khan vs. Muhammad Ibrahim (deceased) through L.Rs. and others** primarily revolves around the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, which was initially decreed in favor of Abdul Sattar Khan by the trial court but later set aside by the first appellate court based on a special oath procedure.
Here are the main points discussed in the case law:
1. **Background**:
- Abdul Sattar Khan filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 21.03.1995.
- The trial court decreed the suit in favor of Abdul Sattar Khan on 18.11.2008.
- Muhammad Ibrahim appealed, and during the appellate proceedings, Abdul Sattar Khan offered to accept the dismissal of his suit if Muhammad Ibrahim took a special oath denying the agreement.
2. **Special Oath Procedure**:
- Abdul Sattar Khan offered that if Muhammad Ibrahim swore on the Holy Quran that he did not execute the agreement or receive any money, he would accept the dismissal of the suit.
- Muhammad Ibrahim accepted the offer and took the oath, leading the first appellate court to set aside the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the suit.
3. **Appellant's Arguments**:
- Abdul Sattar Khan’s counsel argued that the special oath was not properly administered according to the required procedures.
- They sought a remand to the first appellate court for a decision on merits.
4. **Respondents' Arguments**:
- The respondents argued that the oath was administered correctly and that Abdul Sattar Khan’s attempt to challenge it was an act of resiling from a binding contract made before the court.
- They cited the principles of estoppel and the sanctity attached to oaths in judicial proceedings.
5. **Court's Analysis**:
- The court noted the presumption of correctness attached to judicial proceedings.
- It emphasized that judicial records and orders should not be lightly set aside based on mere affidavits.
- The court referred to several precedents where the sanctity of judicial proceedings and the conclusiveness of special oaths were upheld.
6. **Legal Precedents**:
- The court cited cases like **“Sajid Mehmood vs. Mst. Shazia Azad” (2023 SCMR 153)** and **“Ahmad Khan vs. Jewan” (PLD 2002 SC 655)** which highlight the binding nature of agreements to decide cases based on special oaths.
- Other cases like **“Abdullah vs. Shaukat” (2001 SCMR 60)** and **“Fayyaz Hussain vs. Akbar Hussain” (2004 SCMR 964)** reinforce the presumption of correctness in judicial records and the difficulty in rebutting them with affidavits.
7. **Conclusion**:
- The court found that the special oath was administered properly and that Abdul Sattar Khan could not resile from the agreement.
- The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the first appellate court to dismiss the suit based on the special oath taken by Muhammad Ibrahim.
The judgment underscores the importance of the special oath in judicial proceedings and the challenges in contesting such procedures once accepted and recorded by the court.
مقدمہ ** عبدالستار خان بمقابلہ۔ محمد ابراہیم (متوفی) بذریعہ L.Rs۔ اور دیگر** بنیادی طور پر فروخت کے معاہدے کی مخصوص کارکردگی کے لیے ایک مقدمے کی برخاستگی کے گرد گھومتا ہے، جس کا ابتدائی طور پر ٹرائل کورٹ نے عبدالستار خان کے حق میں فیصلہ سنایا تھا لیکن بعد میں حلف کے خصوصی طریقہ کار کی بنیاد پر پہلی اپیل کورٹ نے اسے مسترد کر دیا تھا۔ .
مقدمہ قانون میں زیر بحث اہم نکات یہ ہیں:
1. **پس منظر**:
- عبدالستار خان نے مورخہ 21.03.1995 کو فروخت کے معاہدے کی مخصوص کارکردگی کے لیے مقدمہ دائر کیا۔
- ٹرائل کورٹ نے 18.11.2008 کو عبدالستار خان کے حق میں مقدمہ کا فیصلہ سنایا۔
- محمد ابراہیم نے اپیل کی، اور اپیل کی کارروائی کے دوران، عبدالستار خان نے پیشکش کی کہ اگر محمد ابراہیم نے معاہدے سے انکار کرتے ہوئے خصوصی حلف اٹھایا تو وہ اپنا مقدمہ خارج کر دے گا۔
2. **خصوصی حلف کا طریقہ کار**:
- عبدالستار خان نے پیشکش کی کہ اگر محمد ابراہیم قرآن پاک پر قسم کھائیں کہ اس نے معاہدے پر عمل نہیں کیا یا کوئی رقم وصول نہیں کی تو وہ اس مقدمے کی برخاستگی کو قبول کریں گے۔
- محمد ابراہیم نے اس پیشکش کو قبول کیا اور حلف اٹھایا، پہلی اپیل کورٹ کی قیادت کرتے ہوئے ٹرائل کورٹ کے فیصلے کو ایک طرف رکھ دیا اور مقدمہ کو خارج کر دیا۔
3. ** اپیل کنندہ کے دلائل**:
- عبدالستار خان کے وکیل نے دلیل دی کہ خصوصی حلف مطلوبہ طریقہ کار کے مطابق درست طریقے سے نہیں لیا گیا۔
- انہوں نے میرٹ پر فیصلے کے لیے پہلی اپیل کورٹ سے ریمانڈ کی درخواست کی۔
4. **جواب دہندگان کے دلائل**:
- جواب دہندگان نے دلیل دی کہ حلف درست طریقے سے لیا گیا تھا اور عبدالستار خان کی جانب سے اسے چیلنج کرنے کی کوشش عدالت کے سامنے کیے گئے پابند معاہدے سے دستبردار ہونے کا عمل تھا۔
- انہوں نے عدالتی کارروائی میں حلف کے ساتھ منسلک ہونے کے اصولوں اور تقدس کا حوالہ دیا۔
5. **عدالت کا تجزیہ**:
- عدالت نے عدالتی کارروائیوں سے منسلک درستگی کے مفروضے کو نوٹ کیا۔
- اس نے اس بات پر زور دیا کہ عدالتی ریکارڈ اور احکامات کو محض حلف ناموں کی بنیاد پر ہلکے سے الگ نہیں کیا جانا چاہیے۔
- عدالت نے کئی نظیروں کا حوالہ دیا جہاں عدالتی کارروائیوں کے تقدس اور خصوصی حلف کی تکمیل کو برقرار رکھا گیا تھا۔
6. **قانونی نظیریں**:
- عدالت نے ** "ساجد محمود بمقابلہ" جیسے مقدمات کا حوالہ دیا۔ محترمہ شازیہ آزاد" (2023 SCMR 153)** اور ** "احمد خان بمقابلہ۔ Jewan" (PLD 2002 SC 655)** جو خصوصی حلف کی بنیاد پر مقدمات کا فیصلہ کرنے کے لیے معاہدوں کی پابند نوعیت کو نمایاں کرتا ہے۔
- دیگر معاملات جیسے ** "عبداللہ بمقابلہ شوکت" (2001 SCMR 60)** اور **"فیاض حسین بمقابلہ۔ اکبر حسین" (2004 SCMR 964)** عدالتی ریکارڈ میں درستگی کے قیاس اور حلف ناموں کے ساتھ ان کی تردید میں دشواری کو تقویت دیتا ہے۔
7. **نتیجہ**:
- عدالت نے پایا کہ خصوصی حلف صحیح طریقے سے لیا گیا تھا اور عبدالستار خان معاہدے سے دستبردار نہیں ہو سکتے تھے۔
- محمد ابراہیم کے خصوصی حلف کی بنیاد پر مقدمے کو خارج کرنے کے لیے پہلی اپیل کورٹ کے فیصلے کی توثیق کرتے ہوئے، اپیل خارج کر دی گئی۔
یہ فیصلہ عدالتی کارروائی میں خصوصی حلف کی اہمیت اور عدالت کی طرف سے قبول اور ریکارڈ کیے جانے کے بعد اس طرح کے طریقہ کار کا مقابلہ کرنے میں درپیش چیلنجوں کی نشاندہی کرتا ہے۔
In the case **Abdul Sattar Khan vs. Muhammad Ibrahim (deceased) through L.Rs. and others**, it was Muhammad Ibrahim who took the oath. Abdul Sattar Khan offered to accept the dismissal of his suit if Muhammad Ibrahim swore on the Holy Quran that he had not executed the agreement to sell, issued any receipt, or received any amount from Abdul Sattar Khan. Muhammad Ibrahim accepted this offer and took the oath, leading the first appellate court to set aside the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the suit.
HCJDA-38
JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT,
BAHAWALPUR BENCH BAHAWALPUR
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
R. S. A. No. 08 of 2012
Abdul Sattar Khan
versus
Muhammad Ibrahim (deceased) through L.Rs. and
others
J U D G M E N T
Date of hearing
05.04.2024
Appellant(s) by:
Mr. Aejaz Ahmed
Ansari, learned SeniorASC.
Respondent(s)by:
Mr. Nazir Ahmad Lar,
learned ASC.
Sultan Tanvir Ahmad, J:– Through this
regular second appeal, order dated 18.01.2012 passed
by the learned First Appellate Court is challenged,
whereby, judgment and decree dated 18.11.2008 passed
by the learned trial Court has been set-aside and suit filed
by Abdul Sattar Khan has been dismissed.
2.
Brief facts of the case are that on 19.09.1998
Abdul Sattar Khan filed suit for specific performance
of agreement to sell dated 21.03.1995. This suit
R.S.A No. 08-2012
2
was contested and the learned civil Court Rahim Yar
Khan framed the relevant issues, out of divergence in the
pleadings. The parties led their evidence. On 18.11.2008
the learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of Abdul
Sattar Khan and against Muhammad Ibrahim and others.
3.
Muhammad Ibrahim preferred appeal No. 153
of 2011 on 04.12.2008. In course of proceedings, before
the learned First Appellate Court, Abdul Sattar Khan
made offer that if Muhammad Ibrahim would state on
special oath to the effect that he has neither executed any
agreement to sell nor issued the receipt or obtained any
amount, he has no objection in accepting the appeal. The
offer was accepted on the same day i.e. 18.01.2012. As
per the order-sheet, on oath statement of Muhammad
Ibrahim was recorded. Consequently, through order dated
18.01.2012, the judgment and decree of the learned trial
Court was set-aside and the appeal was accepted. Decree
sheet was drawn accordingly. Order and decree dated
18.01.2012 has been challenged through the present
second appeal.
4.
Mr. Aejaz Ahmed Ansari (learned Senior-ASC)
on behalf of the appellant has stated that special oath was
never administered by the learned First Appellate Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
upon the acceptance of offer, administering oath by
laying hands on the Holy Quran after arranging Holy
Quran in the Court and to give statement in the presence
of the parties and their learned counsel, was inevitable;
that the learned First Appellate Court has failed to follow
the required procedure, which is fatal for the case.
Learned counsel for the appellant is seeking an order of
remand so that the first appeal can be adjudicated and
R.S.A No. 08-2012
3
decided on its merits.
5.
On the other hand, Mr. Nazir Ahmad Lar,
learned counsel for the respondents, has opposed the
above arguments by stating that the oath was
administered in terms of the Oath Act, 1873 (the ‘Oath
Act’), after offer was accepted in unambiguous terms;
that the challenge through the present appeal is an
attempt to resile from the terms of binding contract that
has taken place before a Court. Learned counsel for the
respondents has further stated that the principle of
approbate and reprobate is attracted to this case and in
this regard, he relied upon case titled “Muhammad
Rafique versus Nasir Mehmood” (PLD 2016 Lahore
428). Learned counsel for the respondents has also
argued his case on basis of principle of estoppel as well
as sanctity attached to the oath while relying upon cases
titled “Rafi Kashif versus Imtiaz Ahmad and 2 others”
(2001 MLD 128), “Pitras Gill versus Parvaiz Bhatti”
(2016 CLC 1618). “Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue
Regional Tax Office, Multan versus Muhammad Bilal
and 7 others” [PLJ 2012 Lahore 149 (DB)] and
“Muhammad Mansha and 7 others versus Abdul Sattar
and 4 others” (1995 SCMR 795).
6.
I have heard the arguments and also gone
through the record with the help of the learned counsel
for the parties.
7.
The law is already settled in case titled “Sajid
Mehmood versus Mst. Shazia Azad and others” (2023
SCMR 153) that an offer or proposal to be bound by on
oath statement of the opposite party after its acceptance
and administering special oath is binding upon the parties,
who then cannot wriggle out from the same and in the
R.S.A No. 08-2012
4
absence of satisfactory or sufficient cause the Courts are
obliged to implement the agreement and rest the decision
of the case on the basis of the binding contract.
8.
The Oath Act has not provided any procedure
for recording the statement on special oath but the Court
can adopt its own procedure ensuring that no prejudice is
caused to any of the parties to the lis. In this regard,
ample guidelines have already been given by the
Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases titled “Ahmad Khan
and others versus Jewan” (PLD 2002 Supreme Court
655) and “Muhammad Ali versus Major Muhammad
Aslam and others” (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 841).
The Courts are obligated to secure the interest of the
parties and prevent from hasty decisions taken by the
parties, during examination of witnesses or during a
heated discussion or arguments. It is observed by the
Supreme Court that during heated or intense discussions
sometimes such offers are made or accepted, which
otherwise in the state of cool deliberation one would not
arrive at. The Courts of the Country are guided to be
cautious in observing that such statements are not
recorded with the snap-speed.
9.
Though the statements in the present case are
recorded on the same day, however,learned counsel for the
appellant has not argued that the offer was made by Abdul
Sattar Khan in haste or due to any heated discussions. I
have also carefully examined the grounds taken in this
second appeal. No ground is taken in the appeal raising
any grievance as to recording the offer, acceptance and
then passing final order in one day. Thus, offer and its
acceptance are not disputed and the only controversy is
regarding the administration of the special oath.
R.S.A No. 08-2012
5
10.
Now I would like to reproduce the statements
and proceedings recorded in order-sheet, prior to the final
order, which are as under: -
“During the course of arguments, the
respondent wants to make his statement. As per
request, let his statement be recorded.
Dated: 18.01.2011.
Addl: District Judge
Rahim Yar Khan.
Statement of respondent Abdul Sattar Khan S/0
Ghulam Muhammad Khan, Caste Khossa
Balouch R/O Chak No.143/A, Tehsil Liaquat
Pur District Rahimyarkhan, duly Identified by
his counsel Mr. Ghulam Murtaza Bhatti,
Advocate, on Oath.
States that if the
appellant/defendant gives Oath on Holy
Quran by saying that he has neither
executed any agreement to sell or
receipt in my favour nor obtained any
amount from me, I have got no
objection on the acceptance of the
appeal and dismissal of the suit.
RO & AC.
Addl:District Judge,
18.01.2012.
Rahim Yar Khan.
Statement of appellant Muhammad Ibrahim S/O
Abdul Rahim, Caste Pathan R/O Chak
No.142/A presently resided in Chak No.143/A,
Tehsil Liaquat Pur District Rahimyarkhan, duly
Identified by his counsel Mr. Nazir Ahmad Lar,
Advocate, on Oath.
States that I accept the offer made
by the respondent and gives oath on
Holy Quran that I neither executed an
R.S.A No. 08-2012
6
agreement to sell or receipt in favour of
the respondent/plaintiff nor obtained
any amount from him.
RO & AC.
Addl:District Judge,
18.01.2012.
Rahim Yar Khan”
11.
The above reflects that in unambiguous and
clear terms Abdul Sattar Khan has made his offer that if
oath on Holy Quran is given by Muhammad Ibrahim to
the effect that he has not executed the agreement to sell
and issued the receipt or obtained any amount from
Abdul Sattar Khan, then he has no objection if the suit is
dismissed by accepting the appeal. At the margin of this
order-sheet thumb impression of Abdul Sattar Khan is
reflected. His learned advocate also signed at the margin
of the order-sheet. They being fully aware of the
consequences have made this offer, which is not disputed
even today before this Court. The learned Judge after
recording this statement proceeded to record the
statement of Muhammad Ibrahim which is also
reproduced above. First part of the statement of
Muhammad Ibrahim says that he accepted the offer made
by respondent. This acceptance is followed by word
“and”. The statement after the word ‘and’ reveals that
Muhammad Ibrahim gave oath on Holy Quran that he
neither executed any agreement or receipt nor obtained
amount from Abdul Sattar Khan. It seems that first offer
was accepted and then statement of Muhammad Ibrahim,
after administration of oath, was recorded.
12.
The above is followed by a detailed order of the
learned First Appellate Court, which reads as under: -
“Presence as before.
In view of the offer made by the
R.S.A No. 08-2012
7
respondent/plaintiff as well as statement made
by the appellant/defendant in presence of
their counsel, the proceedings on Oath
initiated after recording statement of
respondent Abdul Sattar, the appellant
accepted the offer and recorded his statement.
The law facilitates to decide the case on Oath,
since counsel for the parties and the parties
themselves are satisfied to decide the matter
on the basis of Oath. In view of statements
recorded by the Court, the appeal in hand
stands accepted and the impugned judgment
and decree dated 18.11.2008 stand set-aside.
Resultantly, the suit filed by
the
respondent/plaintiff is deemed to be
dismissed, with no order as to costs. Record
of the learned trial Court alongwith copy of
this order be sent back and record of this
Court be consigned to the record room after
due completion.”
This order also discloses that the proceedings
on oath were initiated and the statement was recorded
after Muhammad Ibrahim took oath on Holy Quran. The
subsequent part of the above order confirms that the
learned Judge of the First Appellate Court was mindful of
the fact that law facilitates to decide cases on oath. It is
also observed by the learned First Appellate Court that
the parties and their lawyers remained satisfied to decide
the matter on oath. Only thereafter the learned Judge
proceeded to allow the appeal and dismiss the suit.
13.
Mr. Aejaz Ahmed Ansari (learned Senior-ASC)
has relied upon an affidavit of Abdul Sattar Khan that he
filed in consequence of order dated 10.02.2012 passed by
this Court. It is stated in the affidavit of Abdul Sattar
Khan that after mutual consent (offer and acceptance),
proceedings for administering special oath have not taken
place. The relevant clause (No. 4) of this affidavit reads
as follows: -
R.S.A No. 08-2012
8
"ہی ہک دعاتل الیپ ےن دعب ازاں راضدنمی ےک ایبن ےک دعب اباقدعہ
فلح یک اکراا ی ہ یک ہ ی ہی ایبن اھک ہک ںی آرنن دیج ر فلح ے ر
اتہک وہں ہک ںی ےن ارایض دتموعہی اک وسےا رمہاہ دمیع راپسڈنٹن ہ ایک اھت
اار زرنمث اوصل ہ ایک اھت ہکبج ایبن انھکل رضاری اھت اار الزیم رشاطئ
اعمدہہ یھت۔"
14.
As a matter of fact, the entire case is built up on
the basis of above affidavit negating that the proceedings
of administering oath have not taken place before the
learned First Appellate Court. However, the order-sheet
recording the statement and the detailed order passed on
18.01.2012 reflect otherwise. In case titled “Abdullah
versus Shaukat” (2001 SCMR 60), the Supreme Court
ruled that the genuineness of judicial record cannot be
sacrificed at the altar of expediency of a litigant. In the
said case an affidavit of learned counsel for the appellant
to contradict order passed in first regular appeal, was
given no effect. In “Fayyaz Hussain versus Akbar
Hussain and others” (2004 SCMR 964) the Supreme
Court refused to accept an affidavit of a learned
Advocate to persuade against the sanctity of judicial
order. It has been observed: -
“…There is always a presumption of
correctness in favour of judicial
proceedings and credibility is attached
to the proceedings before a judicial
forum. Strong and unimpeachable
evidence is required to rebut the
presumption which is badly lacking in
the case in hand. We are fortified in our
view, by the dictum laid down by this
Court in Ghulam Muhammad v. Malik
R.S.A No. 08-2012
9
Abdul Qadir Khan PLD 1983 SC 68
which is on all fours and attracted in
the facts and circumstances of this
case…”
15.
In case titled “Nasrullah Jan versus Rastabaz
Khan” (NLR 1996 SCJ 163), where a party attempted to
resile from his offer after on oath statement of the rival
party was taken, the Supreme Court held that once the
oath is completed on the basis of offer and acceptance
culminating into a decree, such decree cannot be lightly
interfered with and set-aside on flimsy or technical
ground in view of the sanctity attached to a statement on
oath. In case titled “Najibullah Khan and another versus
Fazal Karim and 2 others” (1997 SCMR 1085) the
Supreme Court of Pakistan, while dealing with a case
where the decision was made on the basis of special oath,
observed that presumption of correctness is attached to
the order of the learned District Judge. It will be
beneficial to reproduce the following extract of
Najibullah Khan case (supra): -
“3. We have considered the
submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners. We do not
agree with him. We find that in the
order dated 6-10-1994, it is clearly
stated that the petitioner No.1 in
presence of his counsel offered oath to
the plaintiffs which was accepted by the
latter. It has also been stated in the
same order that Najeebullah
defendant/petitioner agreed and made
offer that in case the plaintiffs/
respondents take oath on the Holy
Qur'an, their suit may be decreed. The
presumption of correctness is attached
to the order of the District Judge.
Neither the petitioners/defendants, nor
their counsel filed any Affidavit to the
R.S.A No. 08-2012
10
effect that Najeebullah
or the
petitioners had not agreed and made
offer that in case the
plaintiffs/respondents take oath on the
Holy Qur'an then their suit may be
decreed.
When the
plaintiffs/respondents took oath on the
Holy Qur'an in the open Court, the
petitioners did not object to it. Now,
when the plaintiffs/respondents have
taken oath on the Holy Qur'an and the
District Judge has decided the suit
accordingly, it does not lay with the
petitioners to resile from agreement
and their offer and to say that the
decision was made against their
consent. The objection that the oath
proceedings were not covered by
Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat,
1984 was raised before the High Court
and was rightly disposed of. Since the
District Judge has decided the appeal
in accordance with the Oath taken by
the plaintiffs on Holy Qur’an and that
too with the agreement of the
petitioners, we do not see any
justification to interfere with the
impugned judgment.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
16.
As already observed that reading of the ordersheet as well as final order dated 18.01.2012 of the
learned First Appellate Court does not suggest that
special oath was not administered. Strong presumption of
correctness is attached to said order. The affidavit of a
litigant (Abdul Sattar Khan) is not sufficient to rebut
presumption of correctness. This too in view of the fact
that Muhammad Ibrahim, who is now represented
through his legal heirs, during his lifetime and the
pendency of this second appeal filed his affidavit on
27.03.2012 categorically confirming that the learned First
Appellate Court administered special oath, in the
following terms: -
"3۔رہظمحلفاایبنراتےہہکدبعااتسلرپ ٹ ی شن ریکاجبنےسشیپشک
وکوبقل رےت وہےئ رہظم ےن آرنن اپک ر اہھت رھک ر فلح ےایہک رہظم
ےن وک ی اآرار انہم عی قحب دبعااتسلر رحتری ہ ایک ےہ اار ہ ی وک ی رمق اس
ےس اوصل یک ےہ۔"
The reliance by Mr. Ansari on the affidavit of
Abdul Sattar Khan, in view of the counter affidavit of
Muhammad Ibrahim that he gave in his life time and the
strong presumption of correctness to the order-sheet /
judicial proceedings of the Court, has no value.
17.
The Oath Act does not prescribe any formality
of procedure for a special oath. What required is an offer
(section 8 of the Oath Act), its communication to the
other party or witness by the Court in terms of section 9
of the Oath Act and acceptance, followed by
administration of oath and then statement, as envisaged
in section 10 of the Oath Act. Section 11 of the Oath Act
provides that the evidence so given shall, as against the
person who offered to be bound as aforesaid, be
conclusive proof of the matter stated. In case titled
“Ratanlal Saligram and another versus Nathulal
Pankarji Namdeo” [AIR 1961 Madhya Pradesh 108 (V
48 C 43)] it has been observed that where the above
discussed requirements have been fulfilled and recorded
in the order-sheet, it becomes inconsequential that the
statements are not separately recorded. It will be
beneficial to reproduce the following extract of Ratanlal
Saligram case (supra):-
“(4) Adverting to the merits of the
case, it is true that the plaintiff's
proposal and the defendants'
acceptance to administer special oath
12
were not made by means of
applications, and it is also true that on
a separate deposition form the
statement of the defendant was not
recorded. I am called up- on to decide
the effect of this. In the Oaths Act 1873,
no such formalities of procedure have
been prescribed. All that is required is
that there must be an offer to be bound
by a special oath as mentioned in
section 8, and the acceptance of the
offer by the other party; thereupon the
court may proceed to administer such
oath. The evidence given by the party
taking oath then becomes conclusive
proof of the matter stated.
Where all this is recorded in the
order sheet of the Court, it is
inconsequential that the proposal, the
acceptance and the statement were not
separately recorded. In the absence of
any special procedure, the judgment
and decree of the trial Judge could not
be set aside for want of those
formalities. The Court has to see in
substance whether the requirements of
the Oaths Act were fulfilled. In this
case, below the order-sheet of
December, 5, 1957, the plaintiff has put
his signature. Neither on that day nor
on any other day, did he approach the
trial Judge with any grievance.”
18.
In the wake of above discussion, I am of the
opinion that no mistake is made by the learned First
Appellate Court. Therefore, present appeal is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(Sultan Tanvir Ahmad)
Judge
Announced in open Court on 09.04.2024.
Approved for Reporting
Iqbal *
Judge
Comments
Post a Comment