' KH. IMTIAZ AHMAD, J.---This civil revision is directed against the order dated 20-7-2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sahiwal whereby the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed and judgment, and decree dated 15-11-2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Sahiwal whereby the appeal was also dismissed.
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this civil revision are that the petitioner filed a suit for the specific performance of contract which was contested by the defendant. Issues were framed and the plaintiff was awarded many opportunities for producing the evidence but he failed to produce the evidence and resultantly his evidence was closed and vide impugned judgment and decree dated 20-7-2010 the learned Civil Judge Class-III, Sahiwal dismissed the suit. The petitioner feeling aggrieved preferred the appeal. During the pendency of the said appeal on 15-11-2010 the appellant who was personally present before the appellate court made the offer that if the respondent takes the oath on Holy Quran that he never entered into agreement to sell dated 18-12- 2002 in respect of the suit land with the appellant nor received any consideration amount then his appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn. The offer was accepted by the respondent and he made the statement on the same day to the effect that he had never entered into an agreement to sell dated 18-12-2002 in respect of the suit land with the appellant nor received any consideration amount. Once again the statement of the appellant was recorded to the effect that he had heard the statement of the respondent made on the Holy Quran and in view of the statement he does not prosecute the instant appeal it be dismissed as withdrawn and so the learned District Judge, Sahiwal vide order dated 15-11-2010 dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved the present civil revision has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the statement of the appellant was recorded, his counsel was not present and so the learned appellate court committed illegality. He contended that no separate statement for the acceptance of offer was recorded by the appellate court and so the said proceedings were also illegal on this basis. He further contended that the procedure as provided in Art, 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat has not been adopted and placed reliance upon "Dr. Abdul Ghaffor Raza and 2 others v. Mst. Razia Begum" (1995 SCM R 918).
4. Arguments heard record perused.
5. The proceedings before the appellate court were not under Art.163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat but were under the Oaths Act. Mere absence of the counsel was no ground to declare the proceedings as illegal. The offer of the appellant was duly recorded by the appellate court. The learned appellate court had specifically mentioned that the respondent has accepted the offer and further ordered that let his statement be recorded. Thereafter the statement of the respondent duly thumb marked by him was recorded. The matter did not end here once again the statement of the appellant duly thumb marked by him was recorded that he had heard the statement and his appeal be dismissed as withdrawn. Under the Oaths Act once the offer is made and is accepted by the other party even then prior to the passing of the final order the person making the offer cannot resile from his offer. In a case-law reported in (PLD 1997 SC 823) captioned "Mahmood All Butt v.
Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 10 others" it was observed that special oath made basis of the decision, therefore, is not covered by Art.163, Qanun-e-Shahadat and reference to said Article and alleged violation of any supposed prescribed procedure was not relevant in circumstances. Almost same principle was laid down in a case reported in " Muhammad Ijaz v.
Additional District Judge, Islamabad and 3 others" (2005 CLC 1164). Thus the settled law on the point is that when any person makes an offer to the other party to make statement on oath then the said offer is not under Art.163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat but under the Oaths Act if this offer is accepted then the person making the offer cannot resile from it. In the present case also the petitioner himself made the offer that if the respondent would make the oath on Holy Quran that he had not entered into an agreement to sell nor received the consideration amount then his appeal be dismissed as. Withdrawn. The offer was duly accepted and the respondent made the statement on Holy Quran to the same effect. Thereafter once again the appellant made the statement duly thumb marked by him that he had heard the statement and in view of the said statement he did not want to prosecute the instant appeal and it be dismissed as withdrawn. It was on this basis that his appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sahiwal. This being so, no illegality is found in the impugned judgment of the learned District Judge, Sahiwal so this civil revision has no force and same stands dismissed in limine.