' In the course of proceedings of a civil suit for recovery of Rs,20,000, filed by Qasim Ali against Ahmad Bakhsh and his wife Allah Wasaee, an offer made on 1-3-1992 by the plaintiff for settlement of the claim on the basis of oath by the Holy Qur'an was not accepted by the other side; and the Court proceeded with the matter, observing that the dispute would be decided on the strength of the evidence of the parties. The plaintiff and the defendants examined their witnesses. In the course of the statement of Ahmad Bakhsh defendant (D.W.2) on 20-9-1992, once again, the learned counsel for the plaintiff made the same offer. Ahmad Bakhsh defendant agreed.
Thereupon his statement to that effect was also taken down. On special oath he said that an amount of Rs,20,000 was due to him from Ahmad Bakhsh defendant. Thereupon, Qasim Ali plaintiff's suit was decreed against the defendants.
2. Judgment-debtors, Allah Wasaee and Ahmad Bakhsh, were unsuccessful in appeal, the same having been dismissed on 28-6-1993 by Ch. Muhammad Iqbal Naru, Additional District Judge, Multan. They have preferred the present revision petition, assailing the validity and operativeness of the Trial Court's decree, dated 20-9-1992, as also the judgment and decree dated 28-6-1993, rendered by the Appellate Court below.
3. Submission is that once the Trial Court had itself made an order (on 1-3-1992) that determination of the dispute between the parties would be made in the light of the evidence to be led by the parties, there was no occasion and no legal justification for reverting to the previous mode, namely settlement of the claim on the basis of special oath. The learned counsel has however, been unable to satisfy the Court about any legal bar operating against such a course being adopted.
The parties had voluntarily opted for such an arrangement and the Court had not at all subjected them to any undue influence, in order to make them agree to resolution of the controversy through oath. The parties had led their evidence, and Ahmad Bakhsh defendant was under cross- examination; and the learned Trial Court were not to exert much or put it any extra labour in arriving at a correct conclusion and deciding the case on merits in the light of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced by them. When however an offer came, and it was accepted, and it was considered to be a better course for bringing the dispute to an end, for all times to come, as it would not be denied that maximum sanctity is attached to statements made on oath by the Holy Book, the Court did not hesitate to proceed accordingly.
4. Surprisingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners has also questioned the validity of the statement made by Ahmad Bakhsh alone, in accepting the offer, emanating from the plaintiff.
Thumb impression of Allah Wasaee co-defendant does not exist beneath the said statement. It is however to be borne in mind that Allah Wasaee is wife of Allah Bakhsh, and the statement had been signed by Sahibzada Mahboob Ali Advocate, who was learned counsel for both the defendants in the suit. It therefore, could not be said that the said statement would not bind Allah Wasaee or had been made without her willingness or against her consent. The defendants- petitioners thus could not be permitted to resile from the statement made by one of them and endorsed by their counsel, undertaking to abide by whatever came on record in consequence of the special oath, proposed by one party and accepted by the other.
4. It may additionally be pointed out that interests of Ahmad Bakhsh and Allah Wasaee, husband and wife, are not conflicting, but are common and inseparable. They had together been sued by the plaintiff. They had engaged one counsel and submitted a single written statement. In evidence, Ahmad Bakhsh had appeared as his own witness and had examined another witness; and Allah Wasaee had not come forward to make a statement of her own. Present revision petition has also jointly been preferred by Ahmad Bakhsh and Allah Wasaee. In no manner it can be said, therefore, that Allah Wasaee was not agreeable to the arrangement, viz. The acceptance coming forth from her husband, in response to the offer made by the plaintiff.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent (decree-holder) has placed before the Court a reported ruling, 1991 SCM R 1371 Muhammad Fazal etc. v. Mst. Sughran Bibi etc. Which is eminently applicable.
6. Both the Courts below have rendered their decisions in a lawful and just manner and no material irregularity or illegality has been committed, calling for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed, with costs.