ABDUL MAJID AND Others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND Another
This matter originated as a suit for the recovery of rent for two crops, Kharif 1973 and Rabi 1974, filed by the respondent against the petitioners. The Assistant Collector (Grade 1), Vehari, decreed the suit based on a special oath taken by the respondent following an offer made by the petitioners. The petitioners unsuccessfully challenged this decree through appeals and revisions before the Collector, the Additional Commissioner, and the Member, Board of Revenue. Subsequently, a writ petition filed in the Lahore High Court was also dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners sought special leave to appeal, contending that only one petitioner, Abdul Majid, had offered to resolve the suit via special oath, rendering the decree non-binding on the others. The Supreme Court examined the record and found this factual assertion to be false. Consequently, the Court held that the decree was validly passed and that the merits of the case had been adequately addressed in prior proceedings. Finding no grounds for interference, the petition was dismissed in limine.
- Is a decree passed on the basis of a special oath binding on all petitioners if the record indicates the offer was made on behalf of all?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a special oath offer?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--Facts briefly stated are that suit filed by Shah Wali, respondent No. 2 herein, against the petitioners for recovery of Rs. 9,700 on account of rent of two crops of Kharif 1973 and Rabi 1974 was decreed by the Assistant Collector (Grade 1), Vehari on the basis of special oath taken by Shah Wali on the offer (made by peti--tioners. Petitioners' appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector was dismissed by the Collector, Vehari and their revision application also met with the same fate at the hands of Additional Commis--sioner, Multan. Petitioners then went up in revision application to the Member, Board of Revenue, but this was dismissed and the review application against that order was also rejected. The petitioners then finally challenged all these orders in Writ Petition No. 573 of 1980 in the Lahore High Court. This petition having failed they now seek special leave to appeal.
2. Shaikh Abdul Sattar Zahid, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, submits that only one of the petitioners, namely Abdul Majid, had made the offer for the dismissal of the suit on special oath and the decree passed on the basis of the special oath is not binding on the other petitioners. Learned counsel also sought to challenge the decree on merits of the case.
3. After having gone through the record of the case, we find that the plea that petitioner Abdul Majid alone made the offer as to the disposal o the suit by special oath is falsified by the record. Since the pleas on merits of the case have been already fully and adequately dealt with at various stages in the proceedings there is no justification, whatsoever, for this Court to interfere.
4. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
Cited by 1 case
- PAKISTAN REFINERY LTD., KARACHI vs BARRETT HODGSON PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. 2020 P SC 113, 2019 SCMR 1726