P L D 1988 Lahore 281 (PLP)

This civil revision has arisen out of a suit brought by the petitioners, Kamal Din and others, against the respondents, Mst. Nawab Bibi and others. The suit was dismissed by a Civil Judge of Kasur , on the basis of a special oath made by the respondents. Judgment and decree passed by the, learned Civil Judge were challenged by the petitioners by taking appeal before the District Judge, Kasur, but in vain. Hence the civil revision.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the offer of special oath was made by learned counsel for the petitioner and not by the petitioners, although they (petitioners) were person in court, and as such the oath could not be acted upon. In this connection, reliance was placed by him on. Alamgir Khan v. Rashid 1976 Law Notes (Lahore) 299.

3. Record reveals that proposal in respect to the special oath was made by learned counsel for the petitioners. His statement in this regard was not only signed by their learned counsel but was also thumb‑marked by two of the petitioners, namely, Kamal Din and Yasin, who were present. It is not the case of the petitioners that other petitioners were also present at the relevant time they were not consulted in the matter. Obviously, by appending their thumb‑impressions to the above statement, Kamal Din and Yasin petitioners, who were in attendance, endorsed the offer made by learned counsel for the petitioners. In the case of Alamgir Khan, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, the parties on whose behalf their counsel had made statement, in their absence, had expressed lack of confidence in their counsel by moving an application seeking adjournment to appoint another counsel in his place. Their application was, however, rejected and thereafter their counsel made statement which was acted upon. No such move against their counsel was made by the petitioners at any stage of proceedings before the learned trial Court. The cited case, being distinguishable on facts, is, therefore, of little help to the petitioners. 4 .Since the proposal of the petitioners' counsel regarding special oath was also endorsed by two of the petitioners, who were present, the same cannot be taken exception to on the ground that learned counsel for the petitioners put forth the proposal by by‑passing the petitioners who were available with him. It is not the case of the petitioners that in the vakalatnama given by them to their leering counsel there was no recital authorizing him to make the said offer. Such recitals are generally there in the standard forms of vakalatnama . 1, therefore, see no force in the argument raised by learned counsel.

5. Resultantly, this civil revision fails. It is, therefore, dismissed in limine. M. B. A. / K‑7 5/ L, Revision dismissed.