Present: Ajmal Mian and Fazal Ilahi Khan, if MUKHTAR AHMED KHAN vs
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's Regular First Appeal, thereby upholding a trial court decree. The core legal question was whether a suit for recovery, based on a pro-note, was validly decreed on the basis of a special oath taken by the respondent. The petitioner contended that he had not consented to the special oath procedure and that his signatures and thumb impressions were obtained by the trial court judge in the absence of his counsel without proper disclosure. The Supreme Court examined the trial court record, which contained two statements recorded from the petitioner on the date of the hearing—one when the oath was offered and another when it was taken—confirming his agreement to the procedure. The Court held that the factual findings of the High Court, which relied on these recorded statements, were sound. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that where the record clearly reflects a party's consent to a special oath, such proceedings are binding.
- Can a suit be validly decreed based on a special oath if the record reflects the defendant's consent?
- Is a party bound by a special oath procedure if they later claim their signatures were obtained without disclosure?
ORDER
' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is brought against the judgment of the learned Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan dated 25-6-1995 whereby petitioner's Regular First Appeal No,65 of 1993 against the judgment of Additional District Judge, Vehari was dismissed.
2. In the respondent's suit filed for the recovery of Rs,2,00,000 on the basis of a pro-note petitioner/defendant was allowed to defend the suit. After filing of written statement and framing of issues the respondent was given several adjournments to produce his evidence since 25-7-1992 to 11-7-1993. However, on 11-7-1993 when the case was fixed for evidence the learned Advocate for the petitioner was not present but the parties agreed to get the case decided on special Oath.
Respondent stated on Oath on Holy Qur'an that he paid an amount of Rs,2 lac to the petitioner and that he was unable to pay it. It was further stated that petitioner had duly executed a pro-note in his favour. On 3-8-1991. After said Oath respondent made a statement that the decision be made as such. Accordingly the suit was decreed by Additional District Judge, Vehari on 11-7-1993. Appeal against the judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned High Court against which leave to appal is prayed for.
3. Petitioner who is present in person denied having made any statement for decision of the case on special Oath and stated that the learned Additional District Judge, in absence of his counsel, asked him to sign certain papers and also got his thumb impression without disclosing him all that has been done for settlement of the dispute through special Oath.
4. In presence of the statement of the petitioner recorded twice on the date of hearing by the learned Additional District Judge, firstly, when special Oath was offered and secondly, when respondent took the Oath on Holy Qur'an; in which he agreed to the decision in terms thereof. This factual aspect of the case has been believed by the learned High Court. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned High Court in refusing to rely on the statement of the petitioner. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and petition dismissed.