P L D 2001 Lahore 499 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD KHAN and 8 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2001 Lahore 499 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KHAN and 8 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Oaths Act (X of 1873)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2001 Lahore 499 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Oaths Act (X of 1873)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2001 Lahore 499 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2001 Lahore 499 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD KHAN and 8 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Afzal Wahla for Petitioner No.1.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th May, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 7 & 13‑‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42‑‑‑Suit for declaration‑‑‑ Recording evidence of witnesses without administering oath‑‑‑Effect‑ ‑ Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in suit was set aside and case was remanded by Appellate Court on the sole ground that evidence of the witnesses was not recorded after administering the new Oath prescribed by High Court in pursuance of amendment in the Oaths Act, 1873‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑ Mere fact that oath was not administered in accordance with Oath prescribed by the High Court under S.7 of the Oaths Act, 1873 was not sufficient in itself to render the judgment and decree as illegal, but at the most it was an irregularity which could be cured by S.13 of the said Act‑‑‑Appellate Court, in circumstances, had acted with material irregularity in holding that since the evidence of the witnesses was not recorded on new prescribed oath, the trial stood vitiated‑‑‑Judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court was set aside and case was remanded to be decided afresh. Sajjad Ahmad and another v. The State 1992 SCMR 408 and Zeb‑ul- Haram v. The State PLD 1991 FSC 1 ref.
Judgment & Decree
This petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arises out of a suit for declaration filed by the petitioners against the respondents to the effect of ownership of land measuring 390 Kanals. The suit was decreed after contest by the trial Court on 6‑4‑1991 in favour of the petitioners. The decree was challenged by the respondents by filing an appeal which was accepted on the sole ground that the evidence of the witnesses was not recorded after administering the new Oath prescribed by this Court in pursuance to an amendment of Oaths Act, 1873. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial Court for decision afresh after recording the evidence of the witnesses on prescribed Oath.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the mere fact that Oath had not been administered in accordance with the fresh Oath prescribed by the High Court under section 7 of the Oaths Act, was not sufficient in itself to render the judgment and decree passed in the proceedings as illegal, at the most it was an irregularity which can be procured by section 13 of the Oaths Act, 1873.
3. This contention of the learned counsel has force and is supported by section 13 of the Oaths Act, which provides that no omission to take Oath or make any affirmation and no irregularity whatever in the form of Oath administered shall invalidate the proceedings or render inadmissible any evidence, whatever in or in respect of which such omission, substitution or irregularity took place, or shall affect the obligation of a witness to state the truth. The provision in question was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sajjad Ahmad and another v. The State 1992 SCMR 408, wherein it was ruled that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which was not recorded by the learned trial Court on Oath, is not a fatal flaw which may vitiate the whole trial and, as such, the plea was repelled. It was further observed that irregularity was certainly curable under section 13 of the Oaths Act, 1873 as held by the Federal Shariat Court in the case of Zeb‑ul‑Haram v. The State PLD 1991 FSC
1. It is, thus, clear that the Appellate Court acted with material irregularity while holding that since the evidence was not recorded on fresh Oath prescribed by the Oaths Act, the trial stood vitiated. In view of the above discussion, this revision is accepted, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge is set aside and the case is remanded to him for decision afresh. As no one has appeared for the respondents, no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑633/L Revision accepted/Order accordingly.