' ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J.--- Through this writ petition an order, dated 28-1-2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura is being questioned. The relevant order being short is reproduced below in extenso:-- "On 25-1-2005 the respondent and the learned counsel have made statement that if Muhammad Anwar son of Akbar Ali caste Dogar, resident of Chak No,20/R.B. Is called and his statement is recorded on oath, then the matter be decided according to oath. He was summoned. He is present in the Court. He on special Oath has stated that he has received the sale amount from Liaquat Ali respondent of the trolly in dispute and has delivered the same to him. Therefore, in view of his statement the revision petition is dismissed. File be consigned to the record room."
2. On the basis of this order of 28-1-2005, the connected revision petition was also disposed of through the following order:- "For the reasons recorded in connected revision petition the petition is accepted. File be consigned to the record room.
' The order is written in the connected revision petition titled Siraj Din v. Liaquat Ali bearing No,9/14- 1-2005.
3. The matter pertains to Superdari of a trolly. The learned Judicial Magistrate in case F.I.R. No,11 of 2004 pertaining to Police Station Bhikki, Sheikhupura while disposing of the Superdari application in the same matter observed as follows:-- "As per record, local police firstly observed that the disputed trolly belongs to petitioner Siraj Din while Investigating Officer has submitted reports before the Court and secondly that the investigation was going on regarding the title to the disputed property. In this situation, the intention of the local police is impliedly seems to be in favor of the petitioner No,1 Siraj Din. Whereas petitioner Liaquat Ali has produced the copies of affidavit, statements, and agreement in their favor from Muhammad Anwar Dogar original owner of the trolly. Also Siraj Din has failed to produce any direct entitlement from original owner. In this situation, many questions are arisen i,e, "why the trolly went into the possession of Siraj Diraj Din" "Why Liaquat Ali did not lodge an F.I.R. For the theft of trolly against Siraj Din when the trolly not be handed over to the person from whose possession it was lastly taken?" The above said all questions are still unanswered because the Investigation Officer has given his final report which is evasive in nature and has not cleared the entitlement of any party upon it. Also no registration lies on it. Consequently, I am of the opinion that the disputed trolly may not be handed over to any party until and unless his ownership is cleared. So, I observe that the parties may have recourse to the Civil Court for the resolution of the dispute of trolly between them and the local police is directed to hand over the trolly to the party who is declared to be the owner of it by the Civil Court. With this observation, files of both the petitions are hereby consigned to the record after its due completion."
4. The question to be seen is whether such a matter could have been disposed of by the learned first Appellate Court while exercising visitorial jurisdiction through a special oath as was done in the present case. Reference may be made to Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 which reads as follows:-- "163. Acceptance or denial of claim on oath.--- (1) When the plaintiff takes oath in support of his claim, the Court shall, on the application of the plaintiff, call upon the defendant to deny the claim on oath.
(2) The Court may pass such orders as to costs and other matters as it may deem fit.
(3) Nothing in this Article applies to laws relating to the enforcement of Hudood or other criminal cases."
5. Reference may also be made to the case of Bashiran Bibi v. Nisar Ahmad Khan PLD 1990 SC 83, wherein it was observed as follows:-- "The sanctity of the Holy Qur'an is such that it cannot be brought in such-like matters depending upon the convenience or whim of a party.
' We wish to observe that the High Court was not right to countenance, when seized of only a bail application, the procedure whereby one of the accused was permitted to take oath in a mosque with regard to the guilt or innocence of himself and the other accused persons.
' Moral standards as they are these days the approval of such a procedure by the High Court would throw the entire administration of the criminal justice into disarray."
' As well as to the case of Khalid Nawaz v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 391, wherein it was observed as follows:-- "We have seen with grave concern that an effort was made by the trial Court to decide the case on special oath of Muhammad Bashir, A.S.-I. With respect to the recovery of the heroin. Initially Khalid Nawaz appellant agreed but later on resiled. In our view the aforesaid portion of the working of trial Court cannot be approved keeping in view the mandatory provisions contained under Article 163 of the Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984 according to which the acceptance or denial of claim on oath with respect to a civil dispute has been provided and allowed while according to para. 3 of the aforesaid Article 163 "Nothing in this Article applies to laws relating to the Enforcement of Hudood or other criminal cases". It means that the criminal case could not be decided on the special oath of Muhammad Bashir, A.S.-I. P.W.3. The aforesaid working, even if carried on, would have proved to be an exercise in futility. It would be instructive to pass the remark that trial Court should refrain from deciding the criminal cases on oath."
6. This Court is sorry to observe that despite ruling given in the case of Khalid Nawaz (ibid), the matter was decided on special oath which was wrong. It further appears that the Court below was totally unaware of the law and acted impulsively in doing what it did.
7. Under the circumstances, this revision petition is accepted and the order, dated 28-1-2005 is set aside and the case is remanded to learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura with direction that he disposed of the revision petition on merits in accordance with law and within one month from today. A copy of this order will be communicated to him immediately.