P L D 1975 Lahore 122 (PLP)

Budha plaintiff appellant filed a suit for a declaration that he is the son of Boorha and was, therefore, entitled to succeed to the land in dispute as his heir. He also prayed for possession against 32 trespassers who were arraigned as defendants. While the suit was proceeding before the trial Court, an order was passed on the 6th January 1964 adjourning it to the 8th January 1964 to enable the parties to arrive at a compromise. When the case came up for hearing on the 8th January 1964, Budha made a plea that if Ataullah was prepared to make a statement on oath that Budha was not the son of Boorha, the suit may be dismissed straightaway. The offer was communicated to Ataullah who agreed to make a statement on oath under the Oaths Act. Since in this statement Ataullah made a categorical statement that Budha was not the son of Boorha the suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court in accordance with the offer made by Budha. Dissatisfied by this decree, Budha filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 4th March 1964. Hence this Second Appeal. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that not withstanding the fact that Ataullah made a statement on oath stating that Budha was not the son of Boorha, Hayat one of the defendants had already admitted that Budha was the son of Boorha in a written statement and, therefore, the matter was such as should have been gone into by the learned Court and the case should not have been disposed of on the basis of the statement made by Ataullah. In support of this submission learned counsel cited In re : Ramdas Vishundas AIR1924Bom.51. The point was that a statement having been made under section I l of the Oaths Act by a party in a civil case by which the other party was bound under the law, was it open to a Court acting under section 476 of the Cr. P. C. to go into the question whether the statement made on oath was correct? It was held that section 11 does not prevent the Court from finding that a particular statement made by the appellant was false in fact and false to his knowledge. The circumstances of this case are entirely different. The statement made under section 11 is binding only upon a person who makes an offer to be bound by it- "The evidence so given shall, as against the person who offered to be bound as aforesaid, be conclusive proof of the matter stated." The Court before which the statement had been made can therefore, not go into the correctness or otherwise of it for the simple reason that the person at whose motion it could have been done is debarred from moving the Court in this regard because he is bound by the statement under section 11 and it is "conclusive proof of the matter stated". Strictly speaking, proceedings under section 476, Cr. P. C. are not proceedings inter partes. They are directed at determining the points at issue in the case in which the statement has been made. They are for the purpose of bringing the author to book for having perjured himself. In such a case, the complaint has to be filed by the Court which is not bound by the statement under section 11 and as observed in this ruling- "Now the complaint is filed by the Court, and it is open to that Court to show, if it can, that that statement was false and false to the knowledge of the person making it." The ratio of this ruling cannot be applied to the point involved before me which is whether the parties are not bound by the statement made by Ataullah despite (a) their offer to be bound by it, and (b) the specific provisions of section 11 quoted above. There is no justification for the submission that despite the mandatory provisions of section 11 of the Oaths Act it is open to a Court to question the veracity of a statement on oath made before it in consequence: of the acceptance under section 10 of an offer from the parties under section 9 of the aforesaid Act. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs throughout. K. B. A. Appeal dismissed.