Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 2614 2004 SLD 2614 2004 PLD 30
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 609 of 1998, decided on 23rd May, 2003
SHAH, JEHAN KHAN, J
Abdul Raziq Khan for Petitioners.Haji M. Zahir Shah for Responders

LAIQ DAD and others

VS

Mst. NOOR JEHAN and others

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

Section: 163,76,117,120

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42

Law: Oath Act, 1873

Section: 8,10

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 163---Oaths Act (X of 1873), S.8---Special oath---Disposal of dispute---Principles---If a party or witness in proceedings makes an offer for disposal of dispute on special oath, it is obligatory and not mandatory for the Court to accept the same---Offer of taking special oath can only be accepted if it is not repugnant to justice and decency---When a party cannot substantiate his claim through evidence, the provisions of Art. 163 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 would come into play---When a claim can be established through evidence, the suit cannot be disposed of on taking oath either by plaintiff or by the defendant---Only in a situation where both the parties agree upon disposal of suit on the basis of general or special oath and both of them reduce their such consent into writing and determine the terms of oath, the suit can be disposed of by taking oath in the terms settled by the parties---Parties are bound by, the terms of oath and Court should dispose of matter in the same manner. (b) Oaths Act (10 of 1873)--- ----Ss. 8 & 10---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.163---Disposal of dispute through oath---Absence of oath agreement between parties--­Effect---Without an agreement between contesting parties for disposal of dispute through special or general oath, the Court cannot force any of the parties to take oath in support of its claim or to accept the offer of the other party for taking of oath in rebuttal of the claim of the party. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.76---Title over suit land--­Plea of Pardahnashin lady---Failure to produce secondary evidence---Sale mutations in favour of defendants were assailed by plaintiffs on the ground of fraud---Trial Court decreed the suit for the reason that the plaintiffs were Pardahnashin ladies and the person who identified them was not produced as witness by the defendants---Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court were maintained by Appellate Court--­Validity ---No attempt was made by defendant to produce the identifier although he had died during the proceedings---No evidence was available to show that at, the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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