' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The respondent, Kashmir Khan instituted, against the appellant, a suit for declaration and possession of the suit property measuring 12 Kanals as described in the plaint. During the course of the trial both the parties recorded their statement on 21-12-2000 that the case be decided on the basis of oath to be taken on Holy Qur'an by the appellant. The appellant/defendant took the oath on the Holy Qur'an. Therefore, the suit of the respondent/ plaintiff was dismissed accordingly, vide judgment and decree dated 21-12-2000, passed by the Civil Judge, Charsadda. The appeal of the respondent/plaintiff was, however, allowed by the Additional District Judge, Charsadda on 24-10-2001 and the suit was remanded to the trial Court for decision on merits. Therefore, the appellant filed Civil Revision No,557 of 2001 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge, of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, vide impugned judgment dated 7-11-2002. Hence this appeal by leave of the Court.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that oath was taken by the appellant in substantial conformity of the provisions of sections 8, 9 and 11 of the Oaths Act, 1872. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit of the respondent accordingly. Reliance was placed on the cases of Nasrullah Jan v. Rastabaz Khan 1996 SCM R: 108, Mahmood Ali Butt v. Inspector- General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 10 others PLD 1997 SC 823, Abdul Qayyum Beg v. Rehmat Wali and 4 others PLD 1993 SC 289 and Muhammad Rafique and another v. Sakhi Muhammad and others,
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel of the respondent argued that the offer of oath made by the respondent under the heat of passion would not be considered to be voluntary one and that separate statements of the plaintiff and respondent of making the offer and its acceptance ought to have been recorded by the trial Court. Therefore, the High Court as well as the first appellate Court rightly remanded the case for trial of the civil suit on its merits. Reliance was placed on the cases of Muhammad Ali v. Major Muhammad Aslam and others PLD 1990 SC 841 and Ahmad Khan and other v. Jewan PLD 2002 SC 655.
4. We have heard the leaned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the available record. There is no evidence on record to show that the offer was made by the respondent under the heat of passion or that it was otherwise involuntary in nature. Therefore, the precedent cases of Muhammad Ali and Ahmad Khan (supra) relied on by the learned counsel are quite distinguishable from the facts of this case. A sanctity is attached to an oath under the Islamic Law. Unless there be something specifically prohibiting such a course, the same would bind the parties in terms of section 11 of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent had willingly and voluntarily offered the appellant to take the oath, which he took. Therefore, he could not be permitted to resile from the same subsequently. The impugned judgments of the High Court as well as that of the first appellate Court are not sustainable at law.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgments of the High Court as well as that of the first appellate Court are set aside and the judgment dated 21-12- 2000 of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the respondent is restored. However, the parties are left to bear their own cost.