' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN, J.-- Through instant writ petition Abdul Kabir Khan, petitioner prays that decree/order dated 6-12-2001 of Zilla Qazi/District Judge, Swat, be declared as illegal and without lawful authority having no bearing effect on the rights of the petitioner.
2. Shortly narrated the facts out of which instant writ petition has arisen are that Raham Zeb Khan, respondent No,1 herein filed a suit on 20-11-1999 against Abdul Kabir Khan petitioner herein for recovery of Rs,200,000 on the ground that respondent No,1 being younger brother petitioner is co- sharer with the petitioner in his personal income, which petitioner is earning through his services abroad in foreign countries. Similar claim was also made in the plaint against Pervez Khan respondent No,2, another brother of petitioner. Reliance was placed on Iqrar Nama dated 22-6- 1997. The petitioner submitted an application on 19-4-2002 for amendment in his written statement. The application having been contested was rejected vide order dated 3-5-2001. The petitioner filed revision petition against the said order before the District Judge/Zilla Qazi, Swat. The petitioner appointed one Habib Khan as Special Attorney. According to Abdul Kabir Khan, Special Attorney got recorded his statement before the revisional Court on 6-12-2001, offering special oath on conditions mentioned in the said statement. The offer was accepted and the revisional Court vide its order dated 6-12-2001 passed a decree for Rs,200,000 against the petitioner.
3. The grievance of the petitioner in essence is that the Special Power of Attorney (Annexure-J) does not empower the attorney to have made the offer of special oath and to have decided the main case on the basis of special oath through the revisional Court and that the matter should have been decided on merits. He added that the conditions for special oath by itself are not understandable to reason and reflects its own mala fide. A false olaim could not be proved through special oath and the revisional Court had no jurisdiction to have passed the impugned decree on the basis of oath. To substantiate the contentions, reliance was placed on Ahmad Khan and others v. Jewan PLD 2002 SC 655 and Inayat Ali v. Muhammad Yaqoob PLD 1999 Lahore 328.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and we find that the submissions made by him do not carry weight. The offer for decision of the matter on oath has been made by attorney of the petitioner. The offer is binding on the petitioner and he cannot wriggle out of it. Whether the attorney was competent to make such offer or not, is a question of fact which cannot be resolved through writ petition. The High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 199 of the Constitution would not, ordinarily, embark upon an exercise to determine intricate, contested and complicated questions of fact. Resolution of such-like controverted issues is ordinarily left to the proper forums, prescribed by any given law because in indulging in such an exercise would have the effect of pre-empting and enforcing upon the jurisdiction lawfully vesting in the competent officers and Courts.
5. Pursuant to above discussion, we find that writ petition is not maintainable and merits dismissal in limine and we order accordingly.