1989 PLP 1065 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus Major MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1065 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus Major MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1065 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1065 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1065 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus Major MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd December, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 29‑11‑1987 in Writ Petition No.387 of 1987). Oaths Act (X of 1873)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.9‑‑Constitutiqn of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Plaintiff's offer to be bound if defendant made statement on Holy Quran controverting plaintiff's factual claim as averred in plaint‑‑Defendant's readiness to make such statement prompted plaintiff to withdraw his offer‑‑Withdrawal of offer not acceded to by Courts below‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether plaintiff was not bound by his first offer and case being still pending whether observations made in impugned judgments would prejudice his case,
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 29‑11‑1987 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner's Constitutional petition arising out of his suit for specific performance of contract of sale of land by the respondent No.l, was dismissed. Learned counsel stated that the real contest parties was whether the said respondent appeared before the Tehsildar on 7‑6‑1979 (presumably to acknowledge the sale). When making statement at the trial as his own witness, the petitioner/plaintiff offered that if the defendant/respondent made statement on the Holy Quran that he did not appear before the Tehsildar on the said date, he (the petitioner) would withdraw the suit. The respondent agreed. But the petitioner, on realisation that the respondent had become ready to take allegedly false oath on the Holy Quran, which he never expected, modified his offer, before the respondent could in fact take the oath. The changed position was that either of the counsel of the parties might take the same oath. On this, legal question arose: whether the petitioner was bound by his first offer He requested the trial Court to remove it from the proceedings. The trial Court refused. His revision before the District Court failed. His Writ Petition also having been dismissed by the High Court, leave to appeal has now sought. Learned counsel has, relying on case‑law, contended that in the circumstances: of this case, the petitioner was not bound by his first offer. He has also contended that the suit is still pending and that the observations made in the impugned judgments would prejudice his case. These and other questions raised in this petition require examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security Rs.2,
000. Status quo including that regarding proceedings, to be maintained meanwhile. AA./M‑782/S Leave granted.