REHMAT ALI vs ABDUL HAMID
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil revision dismissed by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld a trial court's refusal to review a judgment based on an oath taken on the Holy Qur'an. The petitioner sought review, claiming he was unaware that the respondent's father, who took the oath, was an Ahmadi and thus allegedly legally incompetent to swear on the Holy Qur'an. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could rescind an agreement to be bound by an oath after discovering the religious affiliation of the deponent, and whether this constituted grounds for review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was aware of the respondent's father's religious affiliation at the time of the agreement and could not subsequently back out of an offer that had been accepted and acted upon. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a plea of ignorance of law regarding the validity of the oath was untenable. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that parties cannot resile from binding oaths once accepted.
- Can a party resile from an agreement to be bound by an oath on the Holy Qur'an after it has been accepted and acted upon?
- Does the discovery of a party's religious affiliation constitute a ground for review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a party successfully claim ignorance of law to invalidate an oath taken on the Holy Qur'an?
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XLVII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 153, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This is a petition for lease to appeal against the order dated 5 10-1976 of the Lahore High Court passed in Civil Revision No. 920 of 1976, dismissing a petition under section 115, C. P. C. Filed by the petitioner.
2. The trial Judge dismissed the review application on the ground that the provisions of Order XLVII, rule 1, C. P. C. Were not attracted. The petitioner's position before the High Court was that at the time when he agreed to be bound by the oath on Holy Qur'an by the respondent's father he Was not aware that the latter, being an Ahmadi, could not in law make a statement on the Holy Qur'an. After the filing of the review petition the statement of the petitioner had also been recorded and the learned Judge in the High Court on' its basis came to the conclusion that the petitioner was aware of the fact that the respondent's father was an Ahmadi and, therefore, there was no discovery of any new fact which could attract the review jurisdiction under Order XLVII, rule 1,.C. P. C.. He also agreed with the finding of the trial Court that the matter of Court fee was not a matter which could be agitated in review petition As regards the different dates on the judgment and decree the learned Judge observed that this could be corrected under sections 151 and 153, C.P.C.
3. The petitioner has reiterated the grounds which he argued before the High Court. The learned Judge in the High Court has given cogent reasons for not accepting the petition and we see no reason to differ with him. On the relevant date; viz. 18-3-1975, the petitioner was already in the know of the fact that Allah Ditta, the father of the respondent, is an Ahmadi and diespite this he agreed to be bound by the oath which he was to take on the Holy Qur'an. The petitioner cannot be allowed to back out of his offer which had been accepted by the respondent and acted upon. The petitioner's contention that he at the relevant time did not know whether the respondent's father could in law take an oath on the Holy Qur'an cannot also be accepted because the petitioner cannot successfully benefit on the plea of ignorance of law. The High Court rightly refused to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C. P. C. This petition for leave to appeal also fails and is dismissed accordingly.