HARI SHANKAR Vs. RAM SWAROOP
LAWS(RAJ)-1967-2-2
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on February 13,1967

HARI SHANKAR Appellant
VERSUS
RAM SWAROOP Respondents

JUDGEMENT

JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application by the defendant against an appellate decree of the District Judge, Bhilwara, reversing and remanding the suit for decision in accordance with law after completing the evidence of the defendant.
(2.) THE plaintiffs brought a suit against the defendant for the recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note. THE defendant denied the execution and consideration of the pronote. Issues were framed and the evidence of the plaintiffs and their witnesses was recorded. THE defendant and three of his witnesses were also examined. Before his entire evidence was recorded the defendant made an offer that if the plaintiff took the special oath the suit may be decreed against him. Madan Mohan plaintiff refused to accept this offer and made a counter affidavit on 27-1-66 that if the defendant took special oath the suit may be dismissed. THE defendant accepted that offer and the trial court fixed 28-1-66 for the administration of the special oath. On the later date the plaintiff resiled from the offer. THE trial court heard the arguments of the parties on the question as to whether the plaintiff could be allowed to resile from the offer and held that he could not do so. THEreafter a commissioner was appointed to administer the special oath to the defendant on 10-2-66 and on the basis of the report of the commissioner the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. Against that decision the plaintiffs preferred an appeal. THE appellate Court was satisfied that the preponderance of judicial opinion was in favour of the view taken by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Saheb Ram vs. Ram Ncwaz (1), but felt bound to follow the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Chiranjilal vs. Shyamlal (2 ). In the latter decision the learned single Judge followed an earlier decision of the Allahabad High Court in Roop Singh vs. Mrs. Arjun Sen (3 ). That decision was over ruled by the Full Bench of the same Court in Saheb Ram vs. Ram Newaz (1 ). I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Full Bench. THE decision in Chiranjilal vs. Shyamlal (2) cannot be considered to be laying down good law. It is unnecessary to repeat the reasoning given in the Full Bench case of the Allahabad High Court. Following that view I hold that it was not open to the plaintiff to resile from the offer after the defendant had accepted it without showing sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the Court for allowing the offerer to resile. In the present case the only reason given by Madan Mohan plaintiff for resiling from the offer is that he was satisfied that the defendant will not make a true statement even after taking the special oath. It was not stated how the plaintiff was so satisfied. In my opinion no sufficient reason was shown by the plaintiff for resiling from the offer. As the defendant had taken the special oath the court has no jurisdiction left to go into the evidence of the parties. It has no option but to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs. I accordingly allow the revision application, set aside the order of the appellate court remanding the suit and dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs with costs of the trial court and the appellate court. The defendant shall bear his own costs of this Court as the plaintiffs have not contested the revision application. .;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.