1991 PLP 2110 (CLC)

(a) Oaths Act (X of 1873)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12‑‑‑Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land‑‑‑Two out of three plaintiffs and their counsel, stated during the pendency of suit, that if the respondent made a special oath, on the Holy Quran, to the effect that he had not signed or thumb marked the deed in respect of the agreement in question nor did he receive any amount in connection with the said agreement, they would have no objection to the dismissal of their suit‑‑‑Offer of the two plaintiffs was accepted by respondent and Local Commissioner submitted the report which was read by the parties who raised no objection thereto and suit accordingly was dismissed by the trial Court‑‑‑Plaintiffs in second appeal before the High Court contended that respondent had practised fraud on the Trial Court in securing decision in his favour and therefore, the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court deserved to be set aside‑‑‑Argument of plaintiffs was that in another suit which was for partition of land, including the land involved in the agreement in dispute, the respondent had made an application admitting receipt of certain amount of money and, therefore, he had lied while making oath to the effect that he was not paid anything in respect of the agreement in dispute‑‑‑Held, initiative in connection with the decision of the suit on the basis of special oath was taken by the appellants/plaintiffs, obviously when they made an offer in that behalf although it was known to them that in the said application respondent had admitted the receipt of certain amount, and despite all that, they offered to settle the dispute on the basis of special oath prescribed by them‑‑‑Respondent simply accepted their offer and it was difficult to say that while so doing, he had played fraud on the Court‑‑‑Plea of fraud was an afterthought and in fact an attempt on the part of plaintiffs/appellants to wriggle out of the solemn commitment made by them. Saleem Ahmad v. Khushi Muhammad 1974 SCMR 224 and Asifa Sultana v. Honest Traders, Lahore and another PLD 1970 SC 331 distinguished. (b) Oaths Act (X of 1873)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.10‑‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100‑‑‑Whether fraud was practised on the party in relation to oath proceedings being a question of fact same could not be challenged in second appeal before High Court. Mst. Asifa Sultana v. Honest Traders, Lahore and another PLD 1970 SC 331 ref. (c) Oaths Act (X of 1873)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12‑‑‑Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell land‑‑‑Special oath‑‑‑Not much difference between agreeing to the decision of a dispute on the basis of special oath and the withdrawal of a suit or entering into a compromise therein‑‑‑Counsel of plaintiffs was authorised to withdraw the suit or enter into a compromise resulting in the disposal of the suit in accordance with compromise‑‑‑Although it had not been specifically mentioned in the Vakalatnama that the counsel was empowered to settle the dispute in terms of special oath yet the recitals in Vakalatnama left little room for doubt that the counsel had the authority to agree to the disposal of suit on the basis of the oath. Haji Mewo and another v. Mst. Lal Khatoon PLD 1962 (W.P.) Karachi 162; Ghulam Abbas v. Ajmal Shah and others 1989 SCMR 1124 (2); Amir and another v. Muhammad Bakhsh and others A I 4t 1929 Oudh 56 and Mathura Prasad and others v. Sita Ram and others A I R 1940 Oudh 314 ref. (d) Oaths Act (X of 1873)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12‑‑‑Suit for specific performance of an agreement of sell land‑‑‑Two out of three plaintiffs (real brothers) and their counsel during pendency of suit, stated that if the respondent made a special oath, on the Holy Qur'an, to the effect that he had not signed or thumb marked the deed in respect of the agreement in question or that he did not receive any amount in connection with the said agreement they would have no objection to the dismissal of their suit‑‑‑Offer of the two plaintiffs was accepted by the respondent and Local Commissioner submitted his report which was read by the parties who raised no objection thereto and suit accordingly was dismissed by the trial Court‑‑‑Plaintiffs raised a plea in second appeal before the High Court that as one of the plaintiffs, was not a party to the oath proceedings, he was not bound by the judgment and decree which were passed on the basis of the said proceedings‑‑‑No clash of interest was found amongst two of the plaintiffs in the case, who made the offer of special oath and the third one on whose behalf the offer was made by the counsel‑‑‑All three of the plaintiffs were real brothers and no motive had been attributed to the counsel for the plaintiffs to go against the interest of third plaintiff‑‑‑No application for review was made to the Trial Court or before first Appellate Court‑‑‑Counsel of third plaintiff being competent to consent for the oath proceedings on his behalf, third plaintiff was bound by the oath proceedings as well as by the decision founded on such proceedings‑‑ Plea of plaintiffs against oath proceedings was an afterthought which was rejected.‑‑‑[Din Muhammad and another v. Farooq Mirza PLD 1955 Sindh

62. Dissented from]. Din Muhammad and another v. Farooq Mirza PLD 1955 Sindh 62. dissented from. (e) Oaths Act (X of 1873)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Statement made on oath on Holy Quran by a Muslim‑‑‑Significance. Any statement made on oath is a solemn commitment and it is never made lightly, especially by a Muslim. In view of the sanctity of the Holy Qur'an, every Muslim shudders to make oath thereon. Even an illiterate Muslim is aware of the fact that he would incur the wrath of Almighty Allah if a false oath is made on the Holy Qur'an. It can also he inferred from Surah Al‑Nahal, Verse 91 Verses 14 to 19, of the Holy Qur'an that it is not only obligatory for a person making oath to abide by it but the person who agrees to the making of such oath has also been ordained to honour his commitment in this regard.