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


For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Property ki taqseem ,Warasat main warson ka hisa

Punishment for violation of section 144 crpc | dafa 144 in Pakistan means,kia hai , khalaf warzi per kitni punishment hu gi،kab or kese lagai ja ja sakti hai.

Bachon ki custody of minors after divorce or separation