Syed MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs MUSLIM ZAIDI and others
Syed Muhammad Ramzan sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed his civil revision arising from the dismissal of his suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 15-11-1977. The trial court and the Additional District Judge had previously dismissed the petitioner's suit and appeal, holding him bound by the statement of respondent No. 2 given on a special oath. The core legal question was whether a party who made an offer for the opposing party to take a special oath is bound by that statement and precluded from resiling from it. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact were unexceptionable and that the petitioner, having made the offer for the special oath which was duly administered and recorded, was bound by it and could not subsequently resile. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed.
- Is a party who offers for the opposing party to make a statement on special oath bound by that statement?
- Can a party resile from a special oath after making an offer for the same and having it administered?
- Do concurrent findings of fact by lower courts bar interference in a petition for leave to appeal regarding a suit for specific performance?
ORDER
1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--Syed Muhammad Ramzan petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, passed in Civil Revision No,2088-D/84 arising out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell the property in dispute on 15-11-1977. The suit of the petitioner after contest by the respondents was dismissed. His appeal before the Addl. District Judge was also dismissed vide order dated 4-12-1984 and it was held that the petitioner is bound by the statement of respondent No,2 taken on special oath. Civil revision of the petitioner before the Lahore High Court was also dismissed vide order dated 26-10-1985.Hence this petition for leave.
2. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the concurrent findings of fact concluded in favour of the respondents, we have come to the conclusion that there is no merit in this petition for consideration of this Court. As the petitioner himself made an offer to the respondent No,2 to give statement on the Holy Qur'an in presence of his counsel which he did and the same was duly signed by the learned Addl. District Judge as such the petitioner is now hound by the statement of the opposite party and he cannot resile after such an oath. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD MAZHAR Versus ARSHAD MEHMOOD 2005 PLD 304
- Sh. MUHAMMAD FAZIL vs Sh. ABDUL QADIR And 7 OTHER 1997 CLC 243