1998 PLP 2049 (SCMR)
MUKHTAR AHMED KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2049 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Fazal Ilahi Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUKHTAR AHMED KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2049 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2049 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Fazal Ilahi Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2049 (SCMR) (MUKHTAR AHMED KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑S. 8‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Settlement of dispute on special oath by agreement of parties to suit‑‑‑Plaintiff stated on oath on Holy Qur' an that he had paid specified amount to defendant and that he was unable to pay the same and that he had executed pronote in his favour‑‑‑Suit was decreed by Trial Court as also by High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑In presence of statement of defendant recorded twice on date of hearing by Trial Court, firstly, when special oath was offered and secondly, when plaintiff took oath on Holy Qur'an, in which defendant agreed to decision in terms thereof, his oral assertion that he had not agreed to settlement of dispute on special oath, was of no significance‑‑‑ Such factual aspect of case had been believed by High Court in refusing to rely on statement of defendant‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
- Nemo for Respondent
- Date of hearing: 14th November, 1995
- 2. In the respondent's suit filed for the recovery of Rs.2,00,000 on the basis of a pro-note petitioner/defendant was allowed to defend the suit. After filing of written statement and framing of issues the respondent was given several adjournments to produce his evidence since 25-7-1992 to 11-7-1993. However, on 11-7-1993 when the case was fixed for evidence the learned Advocate for the petitioner was not present but the parties agreed to get the case decided on special Oath. Respondent stated on Oath on Holy Qur'an that he paid an amount of Rs.2 lac to the petitioner and that he was unable to pay it. It was further stated that petitioner had duly executed a pro-note in his favour. On 3-8-1991. After said Oath respondent made a statement that the decision be made as such. Accordingly the suit was decreed by Additional District Judge, Vehari on I1-7-1993. Appeal against the judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned High Court against which leave to appeal is prayed for.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 25‑6‑1995 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in R.F.A. No. 65 of 1993). Oaths Act (X of 1873) Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.
This petition for leave to appeal is brought against the judgment of the learned Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan dated 25-6-1995 whereby petitioner's Regular First Appeal No.65 of 1993 against the judgment of Additional District Judge, Vehari was dismissed.
2. In the respondent's suit filed for the recovery of Rs.2,00,000 on the basis of a pro-note petitioner/defendant was allowed to defend the suit. After filing of written statement and framing of issues the respondent was given several adjournments to produce his evidence since 25-7-1992 to 11-7-1993. However, on 11-7-1993 when the case was fixed for evidence the learned Advocate for the petitioner was not present but the parties agreed to get the case decided on special Oath. Respondent stated on Oath on Holy Qur'an that he paid an amount of Rs.2 lac to the petitioner and that he was unable to pay it. It was further stated that petitioner had duly executed a pro-note in his favour. On 3-8-1991. After said Oath respondent made a statement that the decision be made as such. Accordingly the suit was decreed by Additional District Judge, Vehari on I1-7-1993. Appeal against the judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned High Court against which leave to appeal is prayed for.
3. Petitioner who is present in person denied having made any statement for decision of the case on special Oath and stated that the learned Additional District Judge, in absence of his counsel, asked him to sign certain papers and also got his thumb impression without disclosing him all that has been done for settlement of the dispute through special Oath.
4. In presence of the statement of the petitioner recorded twice on the date of hearing by the learned Additional District Judge, firstly, when special Oath was offered and secondly, when respondent took the Oath on Holy Qur'ans in which he agreed to the decision in terms thereof. This factual aspect of the case has been believed by the learned High Court. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned High Court in refusing to rely on the statement of the petitioner. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and petition dismissed. A.A./M-136/S Leave refused