1989 PLP 1857 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ZAMAN Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAITOON BIBI and 16 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1857 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ZAMAN Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAITOON BIBI and 16 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Oaths Act (X of 1873) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1857 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Oaths Act (X of 1873) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1857 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1857 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ZAMAN Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAITOON BIBI and 16 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate with M. A.Siddiqi,Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the. judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 27‑3‑1988 in Civil Revision M1o.115 of 1987). Abdul Rahim v. Sher Gul and 5 others 1987 C. L C 1602 and Tulshi Ram v. Daya Ram A I R 1925 All. 604 distinguished.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant against whom a civil suit has been decreed throughout on the basis of special oath administered to Mst. Zaitoon Bibi respondent on the offer made by the petitioner. The oath taken‑by Mst. Zaitoon Bibi on accclptance of the petitioner's offer was, that she took in her hands a minor child and the Holy Qur'an and made the statement sought by the petitioner, as representing the truth about the controversy and contention between the two sides. Learned counsel relying on `Abdur R:ihim v. Sher Gul and 5 others (1987 C.L.C. 10602) decided by the same learned .fudge who rendered the impugned judgment in this case, contended that the nature it affected a third oath under the Oaths Act, 1813 with the learned, the judgments has made proper distinction between agree with him. The effect of the Oath in the case rendered the wife of a party to that case into a divorcee ‑. case respondent No.1 was not required to utter any such word or do any such gesture as would have adversely affected the interests or rights of the child she , had in her lap. Faced with this situation learned counsel then relying on `Tulshi Ram v. Daya Ram' (1925 Allahabad 604) contended that in the that said case also a child was involved and the Oath was rejected as being repugnant to the provisions of the Oaths Act, vis‑a‑vis, the interest of a third party. Although the said case is distinguishable from the present case yet the analogy even if existing would not be of any benefit to the petitioner. This Court in similar cases has examined the question of application the Oaths Act in the context that where the said law does not apply or could not be attracted‑‑whether the disputed statement could not be relied upon as a "material" piece of "evidence," furnishing proof of contract/compromise between the parties on a vital issue, resolved in a particular manner; and or, whether such a situation could not be equated with the settlement between the parties and/or creating an estoppels against the party seeking to withdraw from the early commitment. When invited to argue the case in the aforenoticed context, the learned counsel after making few submissions which are not even noticeable was unable to show that the case was not properly decided on the statement of respondent No.1, if treated as ordinary piece of evidence and/or as the subject matter of compromise/settlement. That being so it is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal and the same is refused. M.A./K.M‑917/S Leave refused.