Law:

Section:

REMARKS

The bare perusal of Article 163 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 reflects that an initiative has to be taken by the petitioner who\'s first stance is to offer himself for oath in support of his lis where after at his request the Court has to call upon the other side to refute the said statement of the petitioner on oath and the Court is bound to pass any order in the light of the said statement of the parties. Under the Oath Act, 1873, the party desirous of decision on oath ask other party to take oath whereas under Article 163 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, the party having desire to decide the matter on oath put himself to task by offering to take oath first and then on his request the court calls upon the other party to refute the said statement on oath. Both the provisions of Oath Act, 1873 and Article 163 of Qanun-e-Shahadat are opposite to each other. In present case, the plaintiff/respondent did not make an offer for administering special oath as provided in Article 163 of Qanun-e-shahadat Order, 1984 but offered the petitioners/defendants to take oath, which clearly manifest that respondents/plaintiffs offer was under Oath Act, 1873 and not under Article 163 of Qanun-e-Shahadat. The mentioning of wrong nomenclature will not change the complexion or nature of the application and the Court has to see the pith and substance of the application rather than nomenclature of the application.

Case Description (2 words): Special Oath