Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--------S. 48, O.XXVI, R.1, O.XX, R.5 & O.XLI, R.31---Oaths Act (X of 1873), S.8---Suit for possession---Appointment of Local Commissioner and dismissal of execution petition on the ground that the same was time­ barred and had become non-executable because of the subsequent agreement between the parties---Local Commissioner appointed for the purpose 'had dealt with the entire process off handedly and entirely in illegal manner---Statements of witnesses were recorded without cross-examination by the other side---Proceedings of oath had not be!-n. conducted in the laid down manner and the requirements had not be properly satisfied---Mode of taking oath by the -debtor had n been reproduced to highlight as to how and in what manner he took the­ oath ---Validity---Executing Court was supposed to have recorded evidence for and against itself and should not have delegated such judicial function/obligation to a Commission---Provision of O.XXVI R.1, C.P.C. regarding Commission was a qualified provision and laid down certain conditions which were not existing, in the present case at the time of passing such order---Judgments/orders, in the present. Case were based on such proceedings which were entirely illegal and unwarranted in law besides the Courts had passed the impugned orders in a manner not recognized by O.XX, R.5 & O.XLI, R.31, C.P.C. and had failed to comply with the statutory requirements and on that score the impugned orders were nullity in the eyes of law---Impugned ­and orders were set aside and the, case was remanded to the executing Court with direction to, administer oath, if the parties so agreed to the major legal heirs of the deceased -debtor in the prescribed manner, and if the mode and manner in which the oath was to be taken was disputed then the evidence was to be recorded both oral an:; documentary, where after a proper, speaking and elaborate tie given strictly in accord with O.XX, R.5, C.P.C. accepting the order to be passed on the basis of compromise. Muhammad Alain for Petitioner Muhammad Aman Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th April, 2003. JUDGMENT Impugned herein are the judgments dated…

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