1979 PLP 423 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑This is a petition for lease to appeal against the order dated 5 10‑1976 of the Lahore High Court passed in Civil Revision No. 920 of 1976, dismissing a petition under section 115, C. P. C. filed by the petitioner. In a suit instituted by the respondent for the specific performance of a contract, the petitioner proposed that the suit may be decided on the statement made on the Holy Qur'an of Allah Ditta, the father of plaintiff‑respondent herein. The proposal was accepted and Allah Ditta appeared and made a statement on the Holy Qur'an supporting claim made in the suit. The suit was decreed in favour of the respondent. Subsequently, however, the petitioner moved a review petition before the Civil Judge on the ground that the respondent was an Ahmadi and ways not competent to take oath on the Holy Qur'an and as such the decree passed on his statement on the Holy Qur'an was liable to be set aside. He also maintained that the decree was defective because its date differed from that given in the judgment, as required under Order XX, rule 7, C. P. C. An objection was also taken that the court‑fee on the plaint was deficient and, therefore, no decree could be passed. The trial Judge dismissed the review application on the ground that the provisions of Order XLVII, rule 1, C. P. C. were not attracted. The petitioner's position before the High Court was that at the time when he agreed to be bound by the oath on Holy Qur'an by the respondent's father he Was not aware that the latter, being an Ahmadi, could not in law make a statement on the Holy Qur'an. After the filing of the review petition the statement of the petitioner had also been recorded and the learned Judge in the High Court on' its basis came to the conclusion that the petitioner was aware of the fact that the respondent's father was an Ahmadi and, therefore, there was no discovery of any new fact which could attract the review jurisdiction under Order XLVII, rule 1,.C. P. C.. He also agreed with the finding of the trial Court that the matter of Court fee was not a matter which could be agitated in review petition As regards the different dates on the judgment and decree the learned Judge observed that this could be corrected under sections 151 and 153, C.P.C. The petitioner has reiterated the grounds which he argued before the High Court. The learned Judge in the High Court has given cogent reasons for not accepting the petition and we see no reason to differ with him. On the relevant date; viz. 18‑3‑1975, the petitioner was already in the know of the fact that Allah Ditta, the father of the respondent, is an Ahmadi and diespite this he agreed to be bound by the oath which he was to take on the Holy Qur'an. The petitioner cannot be allowed to back out of his offer which had been accepted by the respondent and acted upon. The petitioner's contention that he at the relevant time did not know whether the respondent's father could in law take an oath on the Holy Qur'an cannot also be accepted because the petitioner cannot successfully benefit on the plea of ignorance of law. The High Court rightly refused to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C. P. C. This petition for leave to appeal also fails and is dismissed accordingly. Petition dismissed.