MUHAMMAD ALI vs Major MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petition in a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The core legal question concerns whether a party who made an offer in court to be bound by the oath of the opposing party on the Holy Qur'an can unilaterally retract or modify that offer before the oath is actually taken. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the questions raised regarding the binding nature of the conditional offer and trial proceedings require detailed examination. The Court also ordered that status quo be maintained regarding the proceedings pending the appeal.
- Is a party bound by an offer to have the suit decided on the oath of the opposing party before the oath is actually taken?
- Can a party unilaterally withdraw or modify an evidentiary offer made in court before the opposing party acts upon it?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 29-11-1987 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner's Constitutional petition arising out of his suit for specific performance of contract of sale of land by the respondent No,1, was dismissed.
2. ' Learned counsel stated that the real contest between the parties was whether the said respondent appeared before the Tehsildar on 7-6-1979 (presumably to acknowledge the sale).
3. When making statement at the trial as his own witness, the petitioner/plaintiff offered that if the defendant/respondent made statement on the Holy Qur'an that he did not appear before the Tehsildar on the said date, he (the petitioner) would withdraw the suit. The respondent agreed. But the petitioner, on realisation that the respondent had become ready to take allegedly false oath on the Holy Qur'an, which he never expected, modified his offer, before the respondent could in fact take the oath. The changed position was that either of the counsel of the parties might take the same oath. On this, legal question arose: whether the petitioner was bound by his first offer? He requested the trial Court to remove it from the proceedings. The trial Court refused. His revision before the District Court failed. His Writ Petition also having been dismissed by the High Court, leave to appeal has now sought.
4. Learned counsel has, relying on case-law, contended that in the circumstances of this case, the petitioner was not bound by his first offer. He has also contended that the suit is still pending and that the observations made in the impugned judgments would prejudice his case.
5. ' These and other questions raised in this petition require examination. Leave to appeal is granted.
6. ' Security Rs,2,000.
7. ' Status quo including that regarding proceedings, to be maintained meanwhile.