(X Of 1873)
Scope of—Act is not concerned with compromise
or adjustment—Procedural provision for proof of facts—When decree given on
basis of statement made under the Act is compromise decree.
There can be no doubt that the Oaths Act does
not concern itself with any agreement, compromise, or adjustment in a suit. It
only provides for a procedure by which certain facts may be held to be
conclusively proved as against the party which offers to be bound by the oath
administered under the Act. But we cannot subscribe to the view that where a
decree follows in respect of the whole or part of the subject—matter of a Suit
on the basis of a statement made by a party, or a witness, on oath, in pursuance
of the agreement of the parties to the suit, the decree should be regarded as a
consent decree. But if the intention of the parties is not to obtain a decision
of the whole or part of the subject—matter of the suit , but is only confined
to finding a short cut for the proof of some or facts in controversy by means
of a statement on oath, no decree can immediately follow such oath and the
question of determining the nature of the decree in such a case does not really
Siddiq, PLD 1961 (WP) Lahore 823 = PLR 1962(2) W.P. 431 (DB) (Anwarul Haq, J.)
Ss. 8, 9, 11
— Advocate of party — If can undertake to abide by the oath of other party.
Prima facie party to the judicial proceedings
in sections 8 and 9 of the Oaths Act would include an advocate of the party
also. It appears that an Advocate empowered by a party to enter into a
compromise, etc. is fully competent to make an offer to abide by the special
oath and in doing so he must be deemed to have been so instructed by his
Mewo Vs. Lal
Khatoon, PLD 1962 (WP) Karachi 162 (DB). (Wahiduddin, J.)
Proceedings ordered on defendant’s failure to atten.d the Court to take oath
proposed by the plaintiff—Misuse of power under Order 9, r.—12.C.P.C.
The powers given by Order 9, rule 12, Civil
Procedure Code cannot be employed to force an old and respectable person quite
possibly from a sick bed, upon the demand of the plaintiff, to Court in order
to take an oath in support ,r otherwise of the plaintiffs case. Indeed section
9 of the Oaths Act, which enables the Court to give effect to an offer by a
party to be bound by the oath of the opposite party, clearly provides that “no
party or witness shall be compelled to attend personally in Court solely for
the purpose of answering such question” i.e. whether or not he will make the
Vs Abdul Khaleque (1960) 12 DLR (SC) 261.
(swearing on Quran) is similar to an agreement by contract—Consideration which
weighs to repudiate a contract is also applicable in case of an oath.
Sultana Vs. Honest Traders, (1970) 22 DLR(SC) 303.