1986 PLP 1793 (SCMR)
Syed SULTAN HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus BAHADUR KHAN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1793 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Syed SULTAN HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus BAHADUR KHAN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution at Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1793 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution at Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1793 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1793 (SCMR) (Syed SULTAN HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus BAHADUR KHAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Jamal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st July, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court 22‑2‑1986 Civil Revision No. 29 of 1986). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Decision upon oath‑‑Offer made during recording of evidence for decision of case upon plaintiff's taking oath on Holy Qur'an‑‑Trial Court decreeing suit on basis of oath taken by plaintiff‑ Order impugned‑‑No illegality or infirmity pointed out‑‑Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 1st July, 1986. MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑By this petition leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court dated 22‑2‑1986 passed in Civil Revision No. 29 of 1986.
2. Bahadur Khan, respondent herein, filed a civil suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Swabi against Hasan Khan and Hussain Khan. The suit was resisted by them and later on the name of Hasan Khan was deleted from the array of the defendants. After the close of the evidence of the parties, the plaintiff /respondent gave a statement that if the defendant /petitioner takes an oath, his suit may be dismissed. The plaintiff /respondent took an oath to prove his claim whereas the defendant /petitioner also made his statement, that the decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff /respondent. It was on the basis of the oath taken by the plaintiff /respondent that a decree was passed in his favour against the defendant /petitioner vide order dated 28‑9‑1985 by the learned Civil Judge, Swabi. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed by the learned Additional District judge per order dated 3‑12‑1985 which order was challenged in Civil Revision No. 29 of 1986 before the Peshawar High Court which resulted in the impugned order, dated 22‑2‑1986.
3. At the very outset it may be said that this petition has no merit and is liable to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner had undertaken to abide by the oath taken by the plaintiff /respondent on the Holy Quran before the learned Senior Civil Judge and the learned trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff /respondent. Learned counsel could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The order of the learned Senior Civil Judge reads as follows:‑ "During the recording of evidence, offer was made for decision of the case on oath. The plaintiff agreed to take the oath on the Holy Qur'an and he took the oath saying that his claim was just and correct. On this the defendant gave a statement that suit of the plaintiff be decreed against the defendant (petitioner herein):" In the light of above, we find no merit in this petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.