Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 1659 of 1963‑64, decided on 1st June 1965.

, S. 11‑Offer to take oath accepted by other party and oath actually taken‑Case decided on such oath- Mere fact that no statement was recorded does not invalidate order passed on basis of oath.

Ikramullah for Petitioner.

Qazi Muhammad Ashraf for Respondents.

This is a revision filed against an order dated the 2nd of March 1964, passed by the Additional. Commissioner, Lahore, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents was accepted.

The facts of the case are that Mst. Phohee is alleged to have sold one‑fifth share of the joint Khata of the petitioner for Rs. 3,000. A registered deed was executed on the 29th of October 1962. On the basis thereof, a sale mutation was entered at No. 1817. It was stated that Jamal Din petitioner appeared before the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade. The mutation of sale was rejected on the 24th of November 1962. Jamal Din went in appeal to the Collector and, during the course of arguments; Nasiru, the General Attorney, of Mst. Phohee offered that, if the petitioner took an oath that he had paid Rs. 3,000 and had not got back Rs. 1,000 and that he did not appear before the revenue officer, Nasiru would not resist the appeal. The petitioner accepted the offer and took an oath by the Holy Quran. Nasiru then stated that the appeal be accepted. The Collector accordingly accepted the appeal. Mst. Phohee, however, went in second appeal to the Additional Commissioner who accepted it on the ground that the Collector should not have taken the oath into consideration, but should have decided the case on merits. Hence this revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred me to sections 8 to 11 of the Oaths Act of 1873. Under section 11 of Act, if a party offers that the other should take an oath and the later does so, the other party is bound by the oath. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, has contended that Nasiru did not offer any oath and added that no statement of Nasiru was recorded. A perusal of the learned Collector's order, however, shows that, while the judgment was being dictated, Nasiru offered that the petitioner might take an oath and he did so. It is true that no statement was recorded but there is no reason, why if an offer was not made by Nasiru, the learned Collector should mention it and the petitioner should have taken the oath. In my opinion, it is established that the offer of oath was actually made by Nasiru and this offer was accepted. After the petitioner's having taken the oath, Nasiru was bound by it and, through him, the respondent.

In these circumstances, I accept the revision, set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and direct that the orders passed by the learned Collector shall stand and be implemented.

K.M.A Revision accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.