P L D 1966 W (PLP)

S. M. Hassan and Rao Dastgir Ahmad for Petitioners. Muhammad Zafar and M. S. Baqar for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 17th of June 1964, passed by Commissioner, Sargodha, whereby the second appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed. The facts of the case are that the land in dispute was mort gaged by the respondent in favour of the petitioners and a mutation was sanctioned on the 25th of September 1962. On 1‑1‑1963, a mutation of redemption was entered. Before the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, the mortgagees admitted the receipt of mortgage money. A mutation of redemption was sanctioned. Subsequently, the Revenue Officer moved for permission to review the redemption mutation. This permission was granted. On review, the mutation was rejected. An appeal was filed before the Collector who remanded the case. After remand, the Assistant Collector took further action. While the mutation was under his consideration, Abdullah mortgagor (respondent) offered that, if Ismail mortgagee took an oath that he did not receive any mort gage money, he would surrender his claim. Muhammad Ismail took an oath and the Assistant Collector rejected the mutation. The respondent then went in appeal to the Additional Deputy Commissioner who accepted it. The petitioners went in second appeal to the Additional Commissioner, but it was rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The first question for determination is whether an oath taken before a Revenue Officer is binding or not. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to sections 4 and 8 of the Oaths Act, but the relevant provisions are contained in section 9 of the Act. Therein, it is clearly laid down that the offer should be made by a party in judicial proceedings before it can be binding on the other party. The question for determination, therefore, is whether the proceedings before a Revenue Officer are judicial pro ceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred me to P L D 1965 Lah. 503. That ruling, however, is not relevant at all. On the other hand, I have been referred by the learned counsel for the respondent to A I R 1926 P C 100 and P L D 1961 W. P. (Rev.) 51. Both these rulings are quite clear on the point that the proceedings before a Revenue Officer are not judicial proceedings, but are in the nature of a fiscal enquiry. It is, therefore, clear that, if a party offers an oath before a Revenue Officer and that offer is accepted by the other party, it would not be binding. As regards merits, there is no documentary evidence to show that the mortgagees are in possession. As remarked by the learned Collector, the land in dispute is in possession of the mortgagor. He had rightly added that, if the mortgagees had not received the amount, it was wrong on their part to deliver the possession back to the mortgagor. In these circumstances, I find that both on legal considerations as well as on merits, the petitioners have no case and there is no justification for any interference. The revision fails and is dis missed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.