MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs REHMAT ALI and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit for a declaration of ownership based on an alleged oral gift. During the proceedings, the petitioner offered to have the primary defendant, Rehmat Ali, make a special statement on oath upon the Holy Quran, agreeing that if the defendant swore the gift was not made, the plaintiff would forfeit his claim and the suit would be dismissed. The defendant fulfilled this condition, leading to the dismissal of the suit, a decision upheld by the High Court. The core legal question concerned whether the suit could be dismissed in its entirety when only one of the co-defendants made the oath. The Supreme Court held that since the plaintiff specifically intended for Rehmat Ali alone to make the oath to decide the entire suit, he could not subsequently add new conditions regarding the other co-defendants. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that a party is bound by the specific terms of an oath-based settlement they proposed and cannot resile from it once the opposing party fulfills the condition.
- Can a plaintiff challenge the dismissal of a suit based on an oath taken by a defendant when the plaintiff himself offered to be bound by that specific oath?
- Whether a suit can be dismissed in its entirety when a plaintiff agrees to abide by the statement on oath of a single defendant among multiple co-defendants?
- Can a party add new conditions to a special oath-based agreement after the opposing party has successfully performed the oath?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit for declaration to the effect that one Taj Muhammad had made an oral gift in his favour regarding the suit property and therefore he is its owner.
2. ' The petitioner offered to Rehmat Ali respondent No,1 (a defendant) for making a statement on oath of Holy Quran that Taj Muhammad had not made the Gift, on the making of which, the petitioner/plaintiff would give up the claim and the suit would then be dismissed.
3. ' Rehmat Ali made the required statement on the required oath and thus succeeded. The petitioner having lost the case in the High Court also has sought leave to appeal.
4. The learned counsel has raised the contention that the co-defendants of Rehmat All had not made the oath, therefore, to that extent, the suit could not have been dismissed. On the question as to whether the petitioner wanted Rehmat Ali alone to make the oath for the purpose of deciding the entire suit, the learned counsel answered in the affirmative. That being so, he cannot now add any other condition. Learned counsel could not press the petition any further, leave to appeal is refused.
5. ' Leave to .