P L D 2010 Lahore 484 (PLP)

MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.

Through this petition the petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree dated 18-1-2010 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Toba Tek Singh and the judgment and decree dated 24-2-2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Toba Tek Singh.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was married to respondent No.3 on 21-1-2006. The parties, however, became estranged and on 4-4-2009 respondent No.3 filed a suit for recovery of dowry as per list attached with the plaint or Rs.3,80,225 in lieu thereof being the value of the dowry. The suit was resisted by the petitioner, it was, however, decreed on 18-1-2010 by the learned judge, Family Court, Toba Tek Singh, on the basis of an oath taken on the Holy Qur'an by respondent No.3 under the Oaths Act, 1873. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Toba Tek Singh through judgment and decree dated 24-2-2010.

3. The petitioner has assailed the impugned judgments and decrees, inter alia, on the grounds that the same have been passed against the facts of the case, they suffer 'from misreading and non-reading of the record, the learned courts below have ignored the fact that the suit was for return of dowry and not for recovery of money and even after an admission by the petitioner the price of the dowry could not have been awarded to respondent No.3. Reliance has been placed on the judgment reported as Umar Farooq v. Mehnaz Iftikhar and 2 others (2006 MLD 555).

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned courts below have not appreciated the petitioner's offer to respondent No.3 for taking oath on the Holy Qur'an in its true perspective. The offer was with respect to return of dowry and not for payment of the sum of Rs.3,80,

225. It is further contended that the marriage took place between the parties in the year, 2006 and the suit was filed in 2009. The learned courts below have not taken depreciation of the dowry into account whilst awarding the decretal amount. Even otherwise, the shopkeepers from whom the alleged articles of dowry were purchased have denied having issued the receipts in respect thereto. He, therefore, prays that the impugned judgments and decrees be set aside being the result of illegal exercise of jurisdiction and having been passed with material irregularity.

5. I have gone through the petition as also the copies of the record appended thereto with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perusal of the record reveals that on 16-1-2010 the petitioner appeared before the learned Judge Family Court as his own witness (D.W.2) and whilst being cross-examined by respondent No.3's counsel he offered that if respondent No.3 were to take an oath on the Holy Qur'an, then he would be willing to pay her Rs.3,80,225 in respect of her claim. At that stage the counsel for respondent No.3 accepted the offer on her behalf and on 18-1-2010 respondent No.3 appeared before the learned Judge Family Court and took an oath on the Holy Qur'an and stated that her parents had given her dowry at the time of her marriage the value whereof being Rs.3,80,

225. She further stated that she is entitled to recover the said amount. The petitioner in reply thereto made a statement that he had heard respondent No.3's statement and he undertook to pay Rs.3,80,225 to respondent No.3 within six months i.e. on or before 18-7-2010. The learned Judge Family Court as a consequence proceeded to decree the suit of respondent No.3. It, therefore, does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to contend that he had made an offer regarding return of dowry and not regarding payment of Rs.3,80,

225. Even otherwise, it is settled law that once an offer is made by one party and accepted by the other then the party making the offer cannot resile from the same. Moreover, an offer of a party to a suit whereby it undertakes to be bound by the statement made on oath by the other party on being accepted by the other party is in the nature of a binding agreement. Reliance in this regard is placed on a judgment of a learned Division Bench of this Court reported as Muhammad Mazhar v. Arshad Mehmood (PLD 2005 Lahore 304).

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to rebut the above. There is also no force in the other grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as the suit of respondent No.3 was decreed purely on the basis of the oath taken by her on the Holy Qur'an as a consequence of the offer made by the petitioner. The law laid down in the case of Umar Farooq (Supra) is not attracted to the' present case.

7. I, therefore, do not find that the impugned judgment. and decree dated 18-1-2010 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Toba Tek Singh or confirmation of the same on appeal by the learned District Judge, Toba Tek Singh through the impugned judgment and decree dated 24-2-2010 suffer from any illegality or material irregularity or that the impugned judgments and decrees have been passed by exercise of excess of jurisdiction or that they are perverse in nature.

8. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine being devoid of force. M.H./A-198/L Petition dismissed.