ALI BAIG, J.---Through the instant civil revision petition filed under section 115, C.P.C, the petitioner/ plaintif f has assailed the impugned judgment/order dated 04-7-2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit, whereby the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit has dismissed/turned down the application filed under Article 163 Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 by the present petitioner/plaintif f.
2. The facts in brief are that the present petitioner/ plaintif f had instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the present respondents/defendants in the trial court to the effect that the disputed property fully described in the heading of the plaint situated at Moza Jutial is a common property of the plaintif f/ petitioner and respondent/defendant No,1, but the defendant/respondent No,1 has got attested mutation of the suit land in his name in collusion with Revenue Staff and later on sold-out the suit land to defendants 2 to 7 which is illegal and against the rights of the plaintif f/petitione r and liable to be cancelled. The petitioner/plaintif f has prayed/sought decree to the extent of two kanals land out of total 5 kanals 17 marlas suit land.
3. The respondent/defendant No,1 hotly contested the suit by filing of his written statement in the trial court wherein the respondent/ defendant No, 1 has raised certain legal objections and has also controverted the averments of plaint. Out of pleadings of the parties the learned trial court framed necessary issues. Thereafter the parties led their respective oral and documentary evidence in the trial court.
4. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial court has dismissed the suit of the present petitioner/plaintif f vide judgment/decree dated 31.5.2017.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment/ decree of the learned trial court, the present petitioner/plaintif f had filed civil 1st appeal against the judgment/decree of the trial court in the court of the learne d District Judge Gilgit on 01-6- 2017 which was assigned to the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit for hearing and disposal.
6. During the pendency of said civil 1st appeal before the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit the present petitioner/plaintif f filed an application under Article 163 Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 offering the respondent/defendant No,1 to take oath in rebuttal of claim of the plaintif f. The respondent/defendant No,1 contested the aforesaid application by filing replication/reply to the said application. The learned 1st Appellate Court has dismissed/ turned down the aforesaid application vide the impugned order dated 04-7-2018, hence this revision petition.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/plaintif f contended that the impugned order/ judgment passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case, as such the impugned judgment/ decree passed by the learned trial court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintif f further contended that the petitioner/plaintif f had offered the respondent/defendant No,1 either take oath in rebuttal of claim of the petitioner/plaintif f or the petitioner/ plaintif f may be allowed to take oath in support of his claim, but the learned 1st Appellate Court has wrongly dismissed the application of the petitioner/plaintif f filed under Article 163 Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.
8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent/ defendant No,1 supported the impugned order passed by the 1st Appellate Court by contending that the respondent/ defendant No,1 has already got recorded his statement on oath before the learned trial court and the petitioner/plaintif f cannot compel the respondent/ defendant No,1 to take oath, hence the learned 1st Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the petition of the petitioner/plaintif f filed under Article 163 Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.
9. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the record.
10. From perusal of the record it transpires that vide application filed under Article 163 Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 the petitioner/plaintif f has offered the respondent/defendant No,1 to take oath in rebuttal of claim of the plaintif f/petitioner , but the respondent/defendant No,1 has denied to take oath and the learned 1st Appellate Court has dismissed the aforesaid application filed by the present petitioner/plaintif f vide impugned order dated 04-7- 2018. Under Oaths Act, 1873 a party could offer the oath to other party , but the opposite party could either accept or B reject the offer. In the instant case the respondent/ defendant No,1 has reject ed offer of the petitioner/plaintif f to take oath in rebuttal of the claim of the plaintif f/petitioner .
11. Since the offer made by the plaintif f/petitioner was denied by the respondent/defendant No,1 and thus without an agreement between the contesting parties for disposal of the dispute through special or general oath, the court cannot compel/ force the respondent/defendant No,1 to take oath in rebuttal of claim of the plaintif f or to accept the offer of the petitioner/plaintif f. In this connection reference may be made to case law reported as PLD 2004 Peshawar 30 .
12. Even otherwise both the parties have recorded their respective evidence in the learned trial court and the learned trial court has already disposed of the suit of the present petitioner/plaintif f on merit and the petitioner/plaintif f cannot force the defendant/respondent No,1 to take oath in rebuttal of his claim before 1st Appellate Court.
13. In view of what has been discussed above, I have arrived at conclusion that the impugned order/judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit, is neither suffering from any jurisdictional or other legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. Resultantly , this revision petition having no force is dismissed with no order as to costs. File.