MOHAN LAL Vs. RADHEY SHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. This writ petition was heard by me on 20th February, 2004 and after hearing learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the same was dismissed for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioners-plaintiffs filed the present writ petition challenging the orders passed by the trial Court as well as by the revisional Court, copies whereof are appended as Annexures-'1' and '2' to the writ petition, whereby the trial Court has disposed of the application paper No. 184 Ga for administer special oath of the respondents-defendants, which was affirmed by the revisional Court. THE trial Court in his order impugned has observed that since the parties are not ready for special oath, so the application filed by the petitioner cannot be allowed. THE trial Court further observed that the present suit need to be disposed of on priority basis being an old case pending in his Court. THE trial Court therefore vide its order dated 9th October, 2003 rejected the application 184 Ga, as the prayer made by the petitioners-plaintiffs in his aforesaid application was that the defendants be directed to administer the special oath and they have supported their case by relying upon a decision reported in 1984 ALJ page 581, in which it has been laid down that even after the repeal of the provisions of Special Oath Act, the parties can move an application praying that the respondents-defendants be administer the special oath. This application, as already stated, has been rejected by the trial Court. Thus, aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners-plaintiffs approached the revisional Court by means of revision. THE revisional Court vide his order dated 12 November, 2003 has observed that there is no dispute that the provision relating to Special Oath has already been repealed in the Oath Act in the year 1972, therefore there is no such provision in law for directing the other party to take special oath. However, the special oath could be administered only when the other party was also ready for the same and then his capacity could have been that of a joint witness, but when the other party is not ready, the Court could not direct him to take special oath and to give statement and thus the refusal by the learned civil Judge of the application paper No. 188 C cannot be said to be suffering from any error of jurisdiction, so as to warrant interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.