2001 PLP 128 (MLD)

2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that impugned order is without lawful authority as the learned Presiding Officer decided the application of the petitioner‑ without recording the statement of the parties under section 9 of the Oaths Act. In support of the contention he relied upon 1996 CLC 1923 (AJ&K). (Mst. Nasima Bibi v. Muhammad Farid).

3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record myself. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the impugned order and offer and acceptance of the parties in chronological order to resolve the present controversy between the parties which are as under:‑‑ "The judgment-debtor has moved an application under Order 20, rule 11, C.P.C. which has been put up today with this execution petition. Parties in person. Judgment‑debtor Muhammad Rafique Kashif states that if decree‑holder is ready to state on oath of Holy Qur'an that he had not received Rs.57,000 from him, he is ready to make the full payment of the decretal amount. R.O.& A.C. 21‑12‑1999 (Sd.) Civil Judge, Sahiwal. Mr. Imtiaz Ahmad decree‑holder Present in the Court states in Holy Qur'an that he has not received the said amount in any shape or in any form from the judgment -debtor. R.O.&, A. C. Civil Judge, 21‑‑12‑1999. Sahiwal. In view of the statement got recorded by the parties, the application stands dismissed. Now to come up for payment of the decretal amount on 12‑1‑2000. Dated 21‑12‑1999. Civil Judge. Sahiwal. " The aforesaid operative part of the statements of the parties reveals that offer was made by the petitioner which was accepted by respondent No. 1, therefore, petitioner cannot resile from his offer. Now question arises as to whether petitioner can resile from oral offer because under the Provisions of sections 9, 10 and 11 of Oaths Act the right of resiling from offer has not been conferred. It is settled proposition of law that petitioner cannot be allowed to back out from his own offer/stand, merely on technical ground. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the judgment reported as, Malik Khan Muhammad alias Khani v. Maulvi Luqman and others (1993 CLC 1552). The aforesaid proposition of law is also supported by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Ali's case PLD 1990 SC

841. It is also settled proposition of law that offer once made by any party and accepted by the same has become binding contract between the parties and nobody is allowed to resile from the contract. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Salim Ahmad's case 1974 SCMR

224. The aforesaid proposition of law is also supported by the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court PLD 1970 SC 241 Muhammad Akbar v. Muhammad Aslam and PLD 1970 SC 331 Mst. Asifa Sultana v. Honest Traders. The learned counsel of the petitioner, failed to point out any material irregularity or illegality committed by the Court below. In view of what has been discussed above this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A:K./R‑35/L Petition dismissed.