1981 PLP 441 (CLC)
RAZA AHMAD KHAN‑Petitioner Versus AHMAD RAZA‑Respondent
| Citation | 1981 PLP 441 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ilyas, J |
| Parties | RAZA AHMAD KHAN‑Petitioner Versus AHMAD RAZA‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Oaths Act (X of 1873)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 441 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Oaths Act (X of 1873)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 441 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Ilyas, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 441 (CLC) (RAZA AHMAD KHAN‑Petitioner Versus AHMAD RAZA‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sheikh Inayat Ali for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.4‑Appeal (civil)‑Pending appeal petitioner proposing that if respondent would swear by Holy Qur'an that he had not sold house to him and had simply mortgaged same, respondent's appeal may be accepted‑On respondent's accepting offer and making prescribed oath appeal accepted accordingly‑Contention that subject‑matter of suit was agreement to sell house and not sale of house as such oath was not proper and could not constitute valid basis for disposal of appeal, held, had no force‑Mere fact that in statements in regard to oath in question parties had used word "sale" instead of words "agreement of sale", held further, immaterial in circumstances of case. [Appeal (civil)].
Judgment & Decree
versus AHMAD RAZA‑Respondent Civil Revision No. 1911/1) of 1980, decided on 22nd November, 1980. S.4‑Appeal (civil)‑Pending appeal petitioner proposing that if respondent would swear by Holy Qur'an that he had not sold house to him and had simply mortgaged same, respondent's appeal may be accepted‑On respondent's accepting offer and making prescribed oath appeal accepted accordingly‑Contention that subject‑matter of suit was agreement to sell house and not sale of house as such oath was not proper and could not constitute valid basis for disposal of appeal, held, had no force‑Mere fact that in statements in regard to oath in question parties had used word "sale" instead of words "agreement of sale", held further, immaterial in circumstances of case. [Appeal (civil)]. Sheikh Inayat Ali for Petitioner.