'This is a petition for winding up of a company known as Plastic Bag Packaging Limited. The petition was made by one Bashir Ahmad and resisted by the respondents, Muhammad Ishaque and others.
Issues were framed with regard to the points in dispute and the case was at the stage of evidence when the petitioner made an offer to settle the matter on the basis of oath by the Holy Qur'an, to be made by all the Directors and shareholders, numbering seven. The offer was accepted by the respondents. Parties' statements in this regard were recorded on 25th April, 1989 and the oath was to be made subsequently. Before the oath could, however, be administered, the respondents filed C.M. No,493/L-89, on 2nd May, 1989, seeking permission to revoke their acceptance to settle the matter on the basis of special oath. In reply, it was submitted by the petitioner that the respondents could not resile from the commitment made by them in connection with proposed oath.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties in the matter.
3. Relying on Sycd Muhammad Ramzan v. Muslim Zaidi and 4 others PLD 1986 Lah. 66 it was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the offer made by the petitioner, when accepted by the respondents, assumed the character of an agreement between the parties which was enforceable under law and, therefore, the respondents could be obliged to make the oath in question. On the other hand, it was submitted by learned counsel for respondents that in view of the provisions of section 12 of the Oaths Act, 1873, the respondents could withdraw the acceptance given by them. As for the case of Syed Muhammad Ramzan, cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, it was argued by learned counsel for the respondents that it was distinguishable on facts. Referring to the case of Mst. Asifa Sultana v. Honest Traders Lahore and another PLD 1970 SC 331 cited in the case of Syed Muhammad Ramzan, it was pointed out by him that in the case of Mst.
Asifa Sultana it was ruled by the Supreme Court that since there was no provision in the Oaths Act with regard to the backing out of the party making the offer, the matter was to be decided according to general principles of law. It was further held in that case that the question whether the person who had made offer can resile from it, depends on facts and circumstances of each case. It was further maintained by learned counsel for the respondents that in the case in hand the party accepting the offer had resiled and such a case has been dealt with in section 12 of the Oaths Act.
According to him, therefore, dictum in the case of Asifa Sultana has no bearing on the point in issue. Besides the case of Asifa Sultana, the other case-law referred to in Syed Muhammad Ramzan's case, also relate to backing out by the party making the offer. It was frankly conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner that in none of the cases finding mentioned in the judgment in case of Syed Muhammad Ramzan related to the party accepting the offer of special oath.
4. As indicated above, in the instant case, the agreement to settle the matter on the basis of a special oath is sought to be revoked by the party accepting the offer of special oath and not by the party making the offer. Therefore, the case of Syed Muhammad Ramzan, which relates to the revocation of the offer, is of little avail to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents is right in submitting that the case of backing out by the party accepting the offer is fully covered by section 12 of the Oaths Act and in view of this specific provision of law, the respondents cannot be obliged to make the oath. It has been laid down in section 12, in unambiguous terms, that the party accepting the offer to settle any dispute by special oath cannot be compelled to abide by the oath if it decides to resile from agreement in this regard. The respondents have given reasons for not adhering to their commitment in this behalf but I need not examine the same when the law does not force them to honour the commitment. Their civil miscellaneous petition is, accordingly, accepted and their prayer to withdraw their acceptance of the offer of special oath is allowed.
5. As already stated above, the case was at the stage of evidence when there was agreement between the parties with regard to deciding the matter on the basis of special oath. Since the agreement has not materialized, the case shall, now come up on 9th July, 1990 for recording of remaining evidence in the case.