Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 163

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

Law: Oath Act, 1873

Section: 9,10

Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 163---Oaths Act (X of 1873), Ss. 9 & 10---Acceptance or denial of claim on oath---Administration of oath, acceptance of---Scope---Plaintiff, during pendency of appeal, filed application offering defendant to take oath in rebuttal of his claim---Defendant contested the application by filing its reply---Appellate Court dismissed the application of plaintiff---Validity---Party could offer the oath to the other party, but the opposite party could either accept or reject such offer---Court could not compel/force defendant to take oath in rebuttal of plaintiff's claim without an agreement between the contesting parties for disposal of the dispute through special or general oath---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances. PLD 2004 Pesh. 30 fol. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: ALI BAIG, J.--- Through the instant civil revision petition filed under section 115, C.P.C, the petitioner/ plaintiff has assailed the impugned judgment/order dated 04-7-2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit, whereby the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit has dismissed/turned down the application filed under Article 163 Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 by the present petitioner/plaintiff. 2. The facts in brief are that the present petitioner/ plaintiff had instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the present respondents/defendants in the trial court to the effect that the disputed property fully described in the heading of the plaint situated at Moza Jutial is a common property of the plaintiff/ petitioner and respondent/defendant No.1, but the defendant/respondent No.1 has got attested mutation of the suit land in his name in collusion with Revenue Staff and later on sold-out the suit land to defendants 2 to 7 which is illegal and against the rights of the plaintiff/petitioner and liable to be cancelled. The petitioner/plaintiff has prayed/sought decree to the extent of two kanals land out of total 5 kanals 17 marlas suit land. 3. The respondent/defendant No.1 hotly contested the suit by filing of his written statement in the trial court wherein the respondent/ defendant No. 1 has raised certain legal…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492