MUHAMMAD IDREES Versus TAJAMMAL HUSSAIN

ORDER

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.‑ --‑Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 1st May, 2000 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.S.A. No.49/2000.

2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that respondents filed a suit on 24th March, 1992 against petitioner for possession through their superior right of pre‑emption in respect of the property which he has purchased by means of registered sale‑deed dated 28th November, 1991. The suit was contested by the petitioner, however, on 8th September, 1997 respondent made offer for decision of the suit on oath, if given to Muhammad Latif, father of respondents Nos. l and 2. Petitioner accepted their offer as such the case was adjourned for 25th September, 1997 for recording of the statement of Muhammad Latif. On the said date Muhammad Latif appeared and showed his willingness for making the statement of oath on Holy Qur'an but before his statement could be recorded, petitioner filed an application mentioning therein reasons to resile from the acceptance of the offer of giving oath to Muhammad Latif. Learned Trial Judge, however did not consider this application and on recording his statement decreed the suit against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent vide judgment dated 1 st July, 1998. Feeling dissatisfied from the judgment/decree of the trial Court petitioner preferred R.F.A. and R.S.A. before the District Judge, Gujranwala_ and Lahore High Court but both were dismissed on 25th April, 2000 and 1st May, 2000, respectively. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the fact that petitioner has withdrawn offer before recording the statement of Muhammad Latif on oath, therefore, the trial Court was bound to decide this application before administering the oath by applying the Rule of Caution and should have examined the reasons mentioned in the application filed by the petitioner to withdraw acceptance of offer of recording of the statement of Muhammad Latif. According to him strong reasons exist in favour of petitioner to convince the Court that respondent have made offer to petitioner/plaintiff for getting recorded the statement of Muhammad Latif on oath. Firstly because Muhammad Latif is the father of respondents Nos. l and 2 and former was persuaded by them to make statement in their favour and no sooner this fact came into the notice of the petitioner, he approached the Court with written request that he intends to withdraw his acceptance of offer of respondent for decision of the case on the statement on oath of Muhammad Latif. In support of his contention reliance was placed by him on P L D 1970 SC 241, 331, 1974 SCMR 224, 1981 SCMR 162, PLD 1990 SC 841, 1995 SCMR ‑795, PLD 1990 SC 237 and PLD 1997 SC 823.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for caveator stated that the petitioner had no lawful authority to back out from his acceptance which he has given in response to the offer made by respondent for the decision of the suit on statement of Muhammad Latif for recording his statement on special oath. He further stated that all the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact, which are not open to any exception because of the fact that no‑point of public importance is involved in instant case.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also cone through the available record as well as the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner at the bar. In our opinion the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner involves question of public importance with regard to interpretation of sections 9, 10, 12 of the Oaths Act as well as Article 163 on the Qanun‑e‑ Shahadat Order and the application of Rule of Caution by the Courts seized with the matters in such‑like cases.

Therefore, leave to appeal is granted to consider the above aspect of the case.

Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 383/2000.‑‑ Status quo is directed to be maintained by the parties during the pendency of the appeal, arising out of instant petition.

S.A.K./M‑317/S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal granted.