MUHAMMAD ALI Versus BASHIR AHMAD

IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.‑‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted to examine as to whether the suit filed by Malik Muhammad Bashir and another was rightly decreed on the special oath taken by Ghulam Nabi, and whether second review petition against the order dated 17‑3‑1993 passed in revision was not competent under Order 47, rule 9, C.P.C.

2. Malik Bashir Ahmed and Ghulam Nabi respondents filed a suit for declaration claiming ownership in possession of Pajero Jeep No.555/MNP by plaintiff/respondent No.2 and that the Registration Authority has illegally shown Muhammad Ali appellant/defendant as owner in its record with consequential relief by way of permanent injunction. An interim injunction was also prayed for through a separate application. During the pendency of trial the parties arrived at a compromise in the following terms:‑‑

The suit was decreed on 28‑9‑1992 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan'on the basis of oath on the Holy Qur'an, which has been upheld throughout. The Courts below gave concurrent finding of fact holding that Ghulam Nabi respondent had taken oath as agreed between the parties. The plea that no such oath was taken as agreed is not sustainable. Suffice it to say that even in the High Court, Ghulam Nabi respondent made an offer to take the oath to the effect that nothing was due to the appellant qua the vehicle in dispute, but that was not accepted. In consequence, the learned Judge in Chamber rightly dismissed the revision petition with the following observations:‑‑

"From the facts narrated hereinbefore and also the development that took place during the course of hearing of the present revision, i.e., the offer of Ghulam Nabi respondent to take oath that nothing was due to the petitioner qua the Pajero in question and refusal of the petitioner to accept the same, I am convinced that the petitioner is attempting to project a cause which is not just. He is hankering after words rather than the spirit of the solemn undertaking between the parties. On this ground as well, there is no scope for interference."

3. Clearly, there is no reason to dispute the statement of facts recorded in the impugned judgment. As to the second review application against the order dated 17‑3‑1993 passed in revision by the learned High Court. Order 47, rule 9(1), C.P.C. itself states, "no application to review an order made on an C application for a review of a decree or order passed or made on a review shall be entertained".

4. In view of the above, we find no force in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

A.A./M‑315/S Appeal dismissed.