MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.--This petition arises from the facts that on 12-1-1982, Fazal Karim, Fazal Subhan and Fazal Wahab respondents filed suit for declaration to the effect that they were owners in occupation of the suit land with a prayer for permanent injunction, against Najibullah Khan and Abdullah petitioners, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Malakand. It was averred in the plaint that they were owners of the suit land through inheritance but the defendants/petitioners were attempting to disturb their possession of the suit land. As a consequential relief, it was prayed that the defendants be restrained from interfering with their possession of the property. The suit was resisted. In the written statement, preliminary objections were raised. The plea of adverse possession was taken and the averments in the plaint were denied. The issues were framed. The parties led their evidence. The suit was decreed on 12-5-1983. The appeal filed by the petitioners against this judgment and decree was accepted by the District Judge. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed Revision Petition in the Peshawar High Court which was accepted and the case was remanded to the District Judge, Malakand for fresh decision of the appeal. When, after the remand, the appeal came up for hearing before the District Judge on 6-10-1994, the parties agreed that in case the plaintiffs/respondents took oath on the Holy Qur'an, their suit may be decreed. On this Fazal Subhan and Fazal Wahab plaintiffs, who were present in the Court, took oath on the Holy Qur'an stating that they were the owners of the suit land and Najeebullah and Abdullah had nothing to do with. Resultantly, the suit of the respondents was decreed. Feeling not satisfied with the judgment and decree of the District Judge, the petitioners filed Revision Petition before the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, which was dismissed vide impugned order/judgment.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners had not agreed for the decision of the case on the basis of oath; and that the oath taken by the respondents/plaintiffs being violative of Article 163 of the Qanun-e--Shahadat, 1984 was/is not binding on the petitioners.
3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. We do not agree with him. We find that in the order dated 6-10-1994, it is clearly stated that the petitioner No.1 in presence of his counsel offered oath to the plaintiffs which was accepted by the latter. It has also been stated in the same order that Najeebullah defendant/petitioner agreed and made offer that in case the plaintiffs/respondents take oath on the Holy Qur'an, their suit may be decreed. The presumption of correctness is attached to the order of the District Judge. Neither the petitioners/defendants, nor their counsel filed any Affidavit to the effect that Najeebullah or the petitioners had not agreed and made offer that in case the plaintiffs/respondents take oath on the Holy Qur'an then their suit may be decreed. When the plaintiffs/respondents took oath on the Holy Qur'an in the open Court, the petitioners did not object to it. Now, when the plaintiffs/respondents have taken oath on the Holy Qur'an and the District Judge has decided the suit accordingly, it does not lay with the petitioners to resile from agreement and their offer and to say that the decision was made against their consent. The objection that the oath proceedings were not covered by Article 163 of the Qanun e-Shahadat, 1984 was raised before the High Court and was rightly disposed of. Since the District Judge has decided the appeal in accordance with the Oath taken by the plaintiffs on Holy Qur'an and that to with the agreement of the petitioners, we do not see any justification to interfere with the impugned judgment.
4. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.