' Instant civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 2-4-1986 passed by the learned District Judge Rajanpur, whereby he dismissed the appeal as well as the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner on the basis of Special Oath.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiff/petitioner is owner of tubewell installed over land described in para. No,1 of the plaint. He gave the said land as well as tubewell on lease to the defendants/respondents Nos.1 and .2 for three years vide lease deed, dated 13-5-1981. It was agreed that on the expiry of lease period, the tubewell shall be handed over to the plaintiff/ petitioner. After the expiry of lease period, the defendants/respondents did not hand over the tubewell to the plaintiff/petitioner, so he was constrained to file the instant suit for the return of tubewell as well as damages amounting to Rs,10,000.
3. Along with this suit, an application for interim injunction was also moved by the plaintiff/petitioner, restraining the defendants/respondents from using the said tubewell.
4. As the application for interim injunction was not replied within the time allowed by the trial Court, so the learned trial Court was compelled to accept the same vide order, dated 13-1-1985. On 14-2- 1985, the defendants/respondents moved an application for the review of order, dated 13-1-1985, alleging that the plaintiff/petitioner has sold out the tubewell to them vide receipt, dated 19-5-1984.
Accordingly, application, dated 14-2-1985 was accepted vide order, dated 14-3-1985 and it was ordered that order, dated 13-1-1985 shall be reviewed. Consequently, application for interim injunction was dismissed vide order, dated 19-3-1985.
5. The plaintiff/petitioner felt aggrieved of the order, dated 19-3-1985 and filed an appeal. The said appeal came up for hearing before the learned District Judge, Rajanpur. On 2-4-1986, the plaintiff/petitioner made an offer to the defendant/respondent Allah Din that if he makes a statement on Oath that he had purchased the tubewell, the appeal as well as suit of the plaintiff/petitioner be dismissed. This offer was accepted by the other party vide statement of even date, After recording the said statements, the learned District Judge recorded order, dated 2-4- 1986, whereby he dismissed the appeal as well as the suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner.
6. The plaintiff/petitioner has felt aggrieved of this order, dated 2-4-1986 and has filed the instant civil revision.
7. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
8. Contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner is that after the offer made by the plaintiff/petitioner and its acceptance by the defendant/respondent Allah Din, a separate statement of defendant/respondent was to be recorded by the Court to the effect that he (defendant/respondent) had purchased the said tubewell and paid its price, that as no such separate statement was recorded by the Court prior to passing judgment and decree, dated 2-4- 1986, so the appellate Court has not passed the impugned order in accordance with law. He, thus, submitted that Civil Revision be accepted and matter be remanded to the appellate Court to decide the same in accordance with law.
9. Conversely, the impugned order has been supported by the learned counsel for the defendants/respondents.
10. A perusal of the record shows that on 2-4-1986, an offer was made by the plaintiff/petitioner to the effect that if Allah Din defendant/respondent makes a statement on Holy Qur'an that he had purchased the tubewell for Rs,12,000 and had paid its price to him, his appeal as well as suit be dismissed. This offer was accepted by Allah Din vide his statement of even date. Thereafter, the defendant/respondent swore on Holy Qur'an that he had purchased the tubewell from the plaintiff/petitioner and had paid him Rs,12,000. It is on the basis of this statement on Holy Qur'an that the appellate Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal as well as suit vide impugned order. The stand of learned counsel for the petitioner that as no separate statement to that effect has been recorded, so the impugned order, dated 2-4-1986 is not a valid order, is devoid of any force. The impugned order clearly shows that the same has been passed, when the defendant/respondent made a statement before the Court on the Holy Qur'an that he had purchased the tubewell and paid its price to the plaintiff/petitioner. The omission to record an independent and separate statement containing that very admission does not retract the value of the admission made in the open Court and mentioned in the final order.
11. The upshot of above discussion is A that impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity what to speak of any material irregularity. As such Civil Revision is devoid of any force and is hereby dismissed.