' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.---This civil revision has arisen out of a suit brought by Mst. Bulbula and her sisters, plaintiffs against their brother Abdullah and others, defendants, for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs were legal heirs of Muhammad Qayum and entitled to inherit 3/11 share in his legacy and defendants had no right to deprive the plaintiffs of their due entitlement or interfere in their rights. The answering defendants in their joint written statement resisted the suit and denied the claim of the plaintiffs.
2. On 9-12-2003, plaintiffs through their Special Attorney, moved an application for decision of the case on the basis of oath, on Holy Qur'an. The offer was accepted by defendants and pursuant to an oath taken by them on the Holy Qur'an, suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 9-12- 2003, passed by learned Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi, Wari Dir. An appeal was preferred thereagainst, which did not succeed. The same was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge/Izafi Zilla Qazi, Wari Dir, by judgment and decree dated 9-4-2004, giving rise to the filing of instant civil revision.
3. Mr. Khalid Khan, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, bitterly criticized the impugned judgments and decrees of the two Courts below and attempted to argue that Article 163 of the 'Qanun-e-Shahadat' 1984, envisaged two oaths, one to be taken by the plaintiff in support of his claim and the other by the defendant to deny the plaintiff's claim but unfortunately, in the instant case, the learned trial Court had not called upon the petitioners to deny the respondents' claim on oath, after he had taken oath in support of his claim and has thus committed an illegality and material irregularity within the meaning of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the learned trial Court had decided the case on oath in a mechanical manner without application of independent judicial mind, which has seriously prejudiced the interest of the petitioners. In this regard, reliance was placed on Muhammad Ali v. Major Muhammad Aslam and others (PLD 1990 SC 841).
4. Mr. Sohail Akhtar, Advocate, representing the respondents, on the contrary, fully supported the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and maintained that the oath taken by the respondents, being the outcome of the offer made by the petitioners was inviolable and the procedure followed by the learned trial Court being in consonance with the provisions of the Oaths Act, 1873 was not open to exception. To substantiate the contentions, reliance was placed on Sheikh Muhammad Bashir Ali and others v. Sufi Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din (1996 SCMR 813), Bhore Khan v. Noor Din (PLD 1993 Peshawar 72) and Aziz-ur-Rehman v. Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 4 others (PLD 1996 Peshawar 51).
5. Having considered the matter from all angles, in the light of the material on file, I find that contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not carry weight, as the oath taken by the respondents having emanated from the offer made by the petitioners of their own free 11 of the Oaths Act, 1873 and not by Article 163 of the 'Qanun-e-Shahadat' Order, 1984. The oath within the contemplation of sections 8 to 11 of the Act (ibid) stems from a voluntary agreement between the parties and when taken has a binding effect, leaving the party making the offer with no choice to turn around and strike a discordant note. The record of the case clearly points out that the learned trial Court had not acted with undue haste but had first recorded separate statements of the parties on oath in respect of the offer and acceptance and then taken the matter to its logical end. The petitioners had thus plenty of time to think over the matter and resile from the offer. The petitioners having offered to the respondents to decide the matter on the basis of oath, cannot be allowed to take a somersault and agitate that being illiterate 'Pardanashin' ladies, petitioners were un-aware of the legal consequences of this oath and as such, matter be remanded to the trial Court for decision on merit. The petitioners agreed to passing of decree in accordance with special oath of respondents on Holy Qur'an. It is not denied that settlement to decide the matter on oath constitute valid agreement from which parties cannot conveniently wriggle out unless contract is ex facie shown to be void or incapable of implementing, which is not the case here. If an authority is needed on the point, reference can be made to Haji Muhammad Siddique v. Province of Punjab and others (1994 MLD 821), Abdur Rehman v. Master Abdul Latif (1999 CLC 573), Kamal Din and others v. Mst. Nawab Bibi and othe (PLD 1988 Lahore 281) a Muhammad Luqman v. Bash it Ahmad (PLD 1994 Karach will and accord is governed by section substance in this civil revision, I dismiss the same, with no order as to costs.