' Rana Ishtiaq Ahmad petitioner is a tenant in respect of premises measuring 4 Kanals, 17 Marlas situated in Chak No,215/RB, Tehsil and District Faisalabad, under the agreement, dated 2-3-2000.
The respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs,18,71,960 being the amount of rent due, electricity bill and damages. The petitioner contested the suit. Written statement was filed on 18-11-2004 and the case was adjourned to 15-1-2005. The respondent moved an application for fixing the case at an early date on 18-11-2004, notice whereof was issued and the case was fixed for 29-11-2004. The petitioner along' with his counsel Mr. Muhammad Afzal Anwar, Advocate, appeared in the Court on 29-11-2004 and got recorded his statement that if Muhammad Aslam Habib, Chief Executive of respondent-Company makes an oath on Holy Qur'an that any amount of rent is outstanding against the petitioner, the petitioner will make the payment of the said amount and the suit be decreed on the basis of oath, Learned trial Court after recording the statement of the petitioner sought from Muhammad Aslam Habib Chief Executive of the respondent-Company, his consent, who accepted the offer to make oath in the manner as had been prescribed by the petitioner.
Muhammad Aslam Habib took oath on Holy Qur'an stating thereby that an amount of Rs,1,47,000 is due as arrear of rent and Rs,86,960 are outstanding as electricity charges and as such total liability of the petitioner was 2,33,960. He also stated on oath that he has not received any amount of rent.
The learned trial Court, on the basis of oath, vide judgment and decree dated 29-11-2004, decreed the suit against the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Faisalabad, on the plea that the suit was decreed without adopting the proper procedure, and that the petitioner had signed on the margin of the order-sheet to record of his consent for an early date and it was not for the purpose of oath. It was also pleaded that neither the petitioner nor his counsel had the knowledge of the impugned proceedings of the learned trial Court dated 29-11- 2004. The learned counsel in support of this assertion has sworn his affidavit. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal on 10-2-2005. The order of learned trial Court dated 29-11-2004 and that the learned lower Appellate Court dated 10-2-2005 are assailed in the present petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the proceedings conducted by the learned trial Court are mala fide and fabricated. The signatures on the margin sheet were not, the acknowledgement of what has been ordered on the said date. The order-sheet was signed in due acceptance of the early date, instead of the date which had already been fixed by Court. Adds that the assertions made in the affidavit by the learned counsel were not denied through a counter- affidavit and as such the same stood admitted. He has placed reliance on the following case-law in support of his arguments:---
(1) Ghulam Muhammad v. M. Ahmad Khan and 6 others 1993 SCM R 662,
(2) Muhammad Ali v. Major Muhammad Aslam and others PLD 1990 SC 841, and
(3) Shakirullah v. Hadayatullah and 3 others 1999 M LD 389.
' Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the learned trial Court has shown undue haste in deciding the lis on oath on Holy Qur'an on the basis of offer and its acceptance by the respondent. Offer and acceptance were statedly made on the same day, in one breath and the parties were not given proper opportunity. Learned counsel has lastly argued that the learned trial Court has neither taken into consideration the merits of the case nor any proper inquiry was made.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. It is manifestly clear from the perusal of the order-sheet that an offer was made, recorded and signed by the petitioner. Similarly an acceptance was made and recorded by the Chief Executive of the respondent-Company. Both the parties signed the order-sheet at its margin. The order also reveals that oath on the Holy Qur'an was made by the Chief Executive of the respondent-Company before the Court and thereafter the decree was passed. The petitioner and his learned counsel, have sworn affidavits to contradict the proceedings recorded on 29-11-2004, which run contrary to the Court record. The judicial proceedings recorded by Court announced by the Presiding Officer in open Court, cannot be altered on the basis ,of affidavits to the contrary, filed by a party and its counsel. Such course of action, if adopted, may lead to a number of complication. Credibility is attached to the proceedings before a judicial forum. Strong and unimpeachable evidence is needed to rebut such presumption, which is lacking the present case. In holding so, I am fortified by the view taken by the Honourable Supreme Court in this respect in the cases Fayyaz Hussain v.
Akbar Hussain and others 2004 SCM R 964 and Muhammad Sultan v. Muhammad Shah Din and others 2001 SCM R 63. The petitioner has himself persuaded the Court to adopt a specific procedure for the decision of the case. The petitioner after having an adverse order against him cannot come forward with the plea that the procedure adopted is illegal. Petitioner has himself placed reliance on PLD 1990 SC 841 (supra). The finding and dictum of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court are contrary to the argument of the learned counsel. Relevant part of the judgment cited above is reproduced as under:-- "The words 'be conclusive proof of the matter stated' in section 11 of the Oaths Act, 1873, obviously mean that evidence on oath so given shall be conclusive proof in the suit in which such evidence is recorded of the matter in respect of which the parties have agreed to be bound. The two rulings cited by the learned counsel for the appellant also point out in that direction. All the three lower Courts having found that the appellant could not be permitted to resile from his offer, which findings do not suffer from any legal infirmity, no interference is called for in this case."
5. In view of the above, there is no force in this revision petition and the same is dismissed in limine.