Atir Mahmood, J.: This Regular First Appeal is directed against order and decree dated 01.02.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Multan whereby suit of the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,100,000/- filed on the basis of cheques has been decreed against the appellant- defendant.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 21.03.2011, respondent Parvaiz Bhatti filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,100,000/- against the appellant with the averments that the defendant is his brother-in-law who used to live in Malta; that the defendant came to Pakistan in year 2000 and offered to get the plaintiff and his family settled in Malta to which they agreed and paid a sum of Rs.1,300,000/- to the defendant in the year 2001 through her sister Mst. Alveena, Principal of Covenant School Multan in the presence of Maqsood Qamar s/o Ghulam Masih and Emanuel Salamat s/o Salamat Masih out of which a sum of Rs.700,000/- was paid through a cheque and rest in cash; that the plaintiff also handed over three passports to the defendant; that when the defendant failed to fulfill his obligation till 2009, the plaintiff and others demanded for return of their money but the defendant refused; that the plaintiff filed an application before Director, FIA, Lahore whereupon the defendant in order to avoid criminal proceedings against him approached the plaintiff; that a panchait took place between the parties wherein a consensus reached between the parties; that the defendant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,100,000/- to the plaintiff and for the very purpose, he issued six cheques bearing Nos. 9158864 dated 10.09.2009 for Rs.200,000/-, 9158865 dated 10.12.2009 for Rs.200,000/-, 9158866 dated 10.03.2010 for Rs.200,000/-, 9158868 dated 10.06.2010 for Rs.200,000/-, 9158869 dated 10.09.2010 for Rs.200,000/- and 9158870 dated 10.12.2010 for Rs.100,000/-; that the cheques when presented before the bank for encashment were dishonoured due to lack of funds.
3. The appellant-defendant appeared before the Court and contested the suit by filing written statement. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and the evidence led by the parties was recorded. Later, learned trial court on the basis of statement made by the respondent-plaintiff on Bible, on the offer so made by the appellant-defendant, decreed the suit vide order and decree dated 01.02.2014. Hence this appeal has been preferred by the appellant- defendant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submits that the impugned order and decree is clear-cut violation of Article 163 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984; that learned trial court has not decided the case issue-wise; that the impugned order is in violation of Order V Rule 20, CPC as well as Section 103, CPC; that the learned trial court has passed the impugned order and decree arbitrarily and without application of judicious mind. He has emphasized more on the point that even after recording statement on special oath by the plaintiff, it was incumbent upon the court to decide the matter in view of the evidence led by the parties, therefore, the RFA in hand, learned counsel for the appellant prays, be allowed, the impugned order and decree be set aside and the suit of the respondent be dismissed. He has relied upon the law laid down in cased reported as Mst.
Khairan Bibi v. Mst. Hajran Bibi (2012 YLR 2054 Lahore) and Raja Wali v. Mansha Ahmed (PLD 1996 Lahore 354).
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed this RFA and also supported the impugned judgment and decree.
6. Out of arguments put forth by learned counsel for the parties, the only question which needs to be resolved is as to whether the learned trial court was justified to decide the case on the basis of special oath or as to whether the court was under obligation to decide the suit on merits even after recording statement of the respondent under special oath.
7. Undisputedly, both the parties are Christian by faith. When the evidence of the respondent had been recorded, the appellant-defendant on 01.02.2014 made an offer on Bible that if the respondent-plaintiff takes oath having the Bible in his hand that he paid the disputed amount for three visas to him, then he would have no objection upon decreeing of the suit which offer was accepted by the respondent-plaintiff. Learned trial court duly recoded statement of the appellant and then respondent was asked to take special oath on Bible. The respondent-plaintiff while keeping the Bible in hand made special oath that he had paid money for three visas to the defendant.
8. It is well settled law that whenever an offer is made by one party to the other to decide the controversy on the basis of special oath and that offer is accepted by the other side and statement on oath is made, then the party who offers settlement of issue on the basis of special oath cannot be allowed to resile from its stance after such oath had been duly administered. In the present case, the defendant himself made offer to put the plaintiff to special oath so as to reach the conclusion of the matter which was duly accepted and the plaintiff sworn the special oath as demanded by the defendant. Thereafter, the defendant could not be permitted to ask for resolution of the controversy other than the mode chosen by himself. The appellant never objected to the procedure adopted by learned trial court as he was duly represented by his counsel at the time when the special oath was administered. In the circumstances, learned trial court has rightly decreed the suit and the appellant-defendant while filing the appeal cannot be allowed to take a new plea that the suit should have been decided on the basis of evidence available on record even if the plaintiff has sworn the special oath. In my considered view, when the matter was put by the defendant himself for decision on special oath which was duly done whereafter there was no need to decide the matter on the basis of evidence. Reliance is placed on the dictums laid down in case reported as Mahmood Ali Butt v. Inspector General Police, Punjab, Lahore and 10 others (1998 PSC 53).
9. In view of what has been discussed above, this appeal is bereft of any force which is accordingly dismissed.