' A suit for the recovery of amount under Order 37, Rule 2, C.P.C. On the basis of a pro-note executed on 5-6-1997 had been filed by Sanaullah respondent (herein) against Muhammad Anwar petitioner (herein) which had been decreed on the basis of consenting statement of petitioner.
2. On 13-1-2000 the said judgment and decree had been challenged by the petitioner through application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Declaring the same to have been passed against facts, law and by misrepresentation. During the pendency of this application, Muhammad Anwar, petitioner made a statement offering to the effect that if Sanaullah plaintiff-respondent states on Holy Qur'an that rupees three lacs are outstanding against him, out of which he had received Rs.1,50,000 and Rs.1,50,000 are due against him then on the day of oath he will make payment of Rs.50,000 in cash and pay remaining amount through monthly instalments of Rs.20,000 and in case of default, the application be dismissed. Sanaullah plaintiff had accepted the offer made by the petitioner on Holy Qur'an. Thereafter, the petitioner resiled from his commitment made in the Court and filed an application seeking withdrawal from his statement and prayed that the case be decided on merits.
The application filed by the petitioner under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was dismissed by the Court on 22- 3-2004.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner before the date of oath has filed the application, resiling from his previous undertaking given in the Court. Further submitted that even if the petitioner resiled from his statement the trial Court was under legal obligation to decide the application on the oath of the respondent. He relied on case of Mst. Asifa Sultana v. Honest Traders, Lahore and another PLD 1970 SC 331.
4. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record,.
5. It is admitted position that Muhammad Anwar, petitioner made a categorical statement in the Court that if Sanaullah plaintiff makes a statement on oath that Rs.3,00,000 are outstanding against him (the petitioner) and out of which he had paid Rs.1,50,000 and for the remaining amount he on the day of administering the oath would make payment of Rs.50,000 in cash and would be bound down to make the remaining amount through monthly instalment of Rs.20,000.
This statement/offer of the petitioner was accepted by Sanaullah and the case was adjourned for administering the oath and payment of amount to 9-3-2004 and on the said date, before' oath could be administered, the petitioner filed an application resiling from his commitment made in the Court. It is settled proposition of law that the offer by party to a suit as to being bound by a statement on oath of his opponent on being accepted by the opponents, is in the -nature of a binding contract. The person who makes the offer cannot therefore resile from the contract. In this context, reference can be made to the cases of Allah Rakha v. Punnun AIR 1941 Lahore 173 Sahib Ram v. Ram Newaz and others AIR 1952 Allahabad 882 and Dilawar Khan v. Tikka Khan PLD 1954 Lahore 290.
6. The burden of all these decisions is that where a party offers to be bound by the statement of any of the opposite party tinder section 9 of the Oath Act he cannot resile from such an offer after the other party has agreed to make such oath unless there is sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the Court for withdrawing the offer to resile.
7. In case referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the facts were that offer was made by Ch. Abdul Ghani that if Malik Fazal Hussain attorney of the decree-holder states on oath that after ablution in mosque situated at Grain Market, Badami Bagh to the effect that he quarrel with the bailiff and attorney of decree-holder did not take place in the shop and that it took place after the possession was delivered and that he arrived at the scene after the possession was delivered then his application be dismissed. This statement was accepted by Malik Fazal Hussain, Mukhtar-e-Khas of the decree-holder on the following statement:- "Stated that Ch. Abdul Ghani Ghuman's offer is accepted. I am prepared to take the proposed oath."
' Before the oath could be taken, Ch. Abdul Ghani Ghuman filed an application resiling from the agreement on the allegation that outside the Court Malik Fazal Hussain bragged that he had won the case and further definitely stated that "by taking oath on Qur'an, my legs will not break." He further stated that he did not mind taking oath for serving his own purpose and thereby will get rid of the whole dispute. Ch. Abdul Ghani Ghuman further stated that he was completely taking aback by this blasphemous attitude of Malik Fazal Hussain. It was observed by the Court that said Fazal Hussain has bragged and adopted Blasphemous attitude in respect of the oath. The facts of Mst.
Asifa Sultana's case are not attracted to the case of present petitioner and petitioner will not get any benefit out of the same.
8. For the foregoing reasons, I see no force in this revision petition which is dismissed in limine.