1994 PLP 821 (MLD)
Haji MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 821 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Haji MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 821 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 821 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 821 (MLD) (Haji MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdur Rehman for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.163
Oaths Act (X of 1873); Ss.8 to 11
Decision on oath-- Challenge to
Suit for recovery of amount filed by plaintiff/petitioner against defendant/respondent having been dismissed by Trial Court, plaintiff filed appeal against judgment of Trial Court and proposed that his appeal be decided on statement of defendant if made on oath
Defendant having accepted proposal of plaintiff, appeal was dismissed by Appellate Court below in light of statement made by defendant on oath as proposed by plaintiff-- Plaintiff in revision filed before High Court had challenged decision of Appellate Court below contending that Article 163 of Qanun-e-Shahadat,1984 having abrogated provisions in Ss.8 to 11 of Oaths Act, 1873, appeal could not have been decided by Appellate Court below on statement made on special oath by defendant
Contention was repelled in view of the fact that both sets of provisions were operating in different fields and one did not affect field of operation occupied by the other
Having himself agreed to mode of decision in appeal, result in appeal was unquestionable by plaintiff and rule of estoppel clearly applied to him.
[Estoppel].
Judgment & Decree
Haji Muhammad Siddique plaintiff instituted a civil suit for recovery of Rs.20,500 from the respondents in a civil Court at Sargodha. Respondents resisted the suit. On trial, suit was dismissed on 23-9-1992 by the trial Court, at Sargodha. Plaintiff preferred an appeal to learned District Judge, Sargodha. On 11-3-1993, appellant proposed that if Shafiq-ur-Rehman, D.W.1 was to depose on Oath that he had participated in the auction proceedings and signed the bid-sheet, he shall not press the appeal and withdraw it. Appellate Court conveyed the proposal to the other side. Malik Tariq Mehmood, D.D.A. on behalf of respondents accepted the proposal and Shafiq-ur-Rehman, D.W.1 who was present in Court was offered to take the proposed Oath for making required statement on it. Thereupon, Shafiq-ur-Rehman in presence of the parties took the proposed Oath in Court. Consequently, on the basis of his statement recorded on Oath by the lower Appellate Court, appeal preferred by Haji Muhammad Siddique was dismissed as withdrawn, on 11-3-1993. Aggrieved of the dismissal of his appeal in the above manner, plaintiff came up in revision to this Court. Sole point urged in support of the civil revision was that Article 163 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 abrogated the provisions in Sections 8 to 11 of the Oaths Act (X of 1873), and, therefore, the appeal could not be decided on the statement made on special oath. The argument did not appeal to me for it had little substance in it. Both sets of provisions operate in different fields. One did not affect the field of operation occupied by the other. It was noteworthy that correctness of the record containing the proposal by the appellant, its acceptance by the other side and making of the required statement on Oath was not disputed. Having himself agreed to the mode of decision in the appeal, the result was unquestionable by the plaintiff. Rule of estoppel clearly applied to him. Civil revision was without force. Therefore, it must suffer dismissal in limine and an order to that effect is accordingly made. H.B.A./M-1357/L Revision dismissed.