' MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the. Lahore High Court dated 13-4-1993 whereby Civil Revision of Mst. Razia Begum against the dismissal of her suit was allowed and the case was remanded to the trial Court for decision on the basis of the evidence of the parties.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Mst. Razia plaintiff/respondent herein filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she was owner in possession of the property in dispute. When the suit was at arguments stage she filed an application on 20-11-1985 to the effect that she was ready to swear on the Holy Qur'an that she had not sold the property in dispute and defendant/petitioner No, 1 herein had manipulated the sale-deed. On this application the learned Civil Judge passed the following order:- "The plaintiff has moved on application under Article 163 of Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984. The plaintiff wants to take oath on the Holy Qur'an. The oath is taken."
' The learned Civil Judge then recorded the statement of the plaintiff/respondent on oath of the Holy Qur'an to the following effect:- "I state on oath of Holy Qur'an that my suit is true. The rebutment of my suit be got made from the defendant on oath on the Holy Qur'an."
' The Learned Civil Judge thereupon ordered the petitioner/defendant to make statement on oath on the Holy Qur'an and he stated as under:- "I rebut the suit on oath of the Holy Qur'an. The suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed and it be dismissed."
' The learned Civil Judge thereupon dismissed the suit.
3. The plaintiff/respondent then filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 12-4-1986. She then filed a Civil Revision in the Lahore High Court challenging the orders of the Courts below which was allowed with the observation that Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat is ambiguously worded as it does not make any further provision for a situation like the present one where parties take special oath, one affirming the claim and other denying it, and the case was remanded to the trial Court for decision on the basis of evidence which stood already recorded.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we do not feel inclined to interfere with the order of remand passed by the learned Judge in Chamber. Section 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat reads as under:- "163. Acceptance or denial of claim on oath:- When the plaintiff takes oath in support of his claim, the Court shall, on the application of the plaintiff, call upon the defendant to deny the claim on oath.
(2) The Court may pass such order as to costs and other matters as it may deem fit.
(3) Nothing in this article applies to laws relating to the enforcement of Hudood or other criminal cases."
The section does not lay down what will be the consequences if the defendant does or does not deny the claim on oath. In the circumstances the order of remand passed by the learned Single Judge seems proper and no interference with the same is called for by this Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.