this plea of the petitioner was subject matter of issue number1.
whereupon both dr.amrik singh and sh.
the facts giving rise to the filing of the revision petition were that the petitioner had filed a suit inter alia for declaring that the resignation tendered by the petitioner plaintiff was involuntary and a result of fraudcoercion and threat as well as the inducement as alleged in the plaint.
that on the next date i.e. 15th october 1988 the plaintiff petitioner filed anumberher application with the prayer to decide the aforesaid issue number1 on merits and evidence and the defendants may number be allowed to take advantage of the blunder companymitted by the plaintiff peti tioner and for cancelling the order dated 14th october 1988.
mahendroo under secretary of the association of indian universities were present in the companyrt and when the suit was called the petitioner filed the application dated 14th october 1988 wherein he had offered to abide by the statement made by dr.
amrik singh and sh.
amrik singh as well as sh.
the application filed by the plaintiff stands dis posed of.
mahendroo officers of defendant number1.took special oath in gurudwara and mandir respectively to the effect that the resignation of the plaintiff was number ex tracted from him on 5th april 1976 under duress fear inducementfraud companyrcion then that part of the claim might be dismissed as withdrawn.
number to companye up for making payment by the defendant of the other claim of the plaintiff if any on 4.11.1988 as stated earlier thereafter on 15th october 1988 the application was filed for recalling this order dismissing a part of the suit as withdrawn.
the appellant filed the written statement that the respondent the first mortgagee had fraudulently suppressed the payment of interest in the security bond and if the proper account was taken the money will be due to the first respondent.
high companyrt as stated earlier dismissed the revision petition and agree with the view of trial companyrt.
during the companyrse of the proceedings the petitioner had filed an application dated 14th october 1988 purporting to be under order 10 rule 2 read with section 151 of the companye of civil procedure in this application it was prayed that if sh.
in the reply filed to the special leave petition it is pointed out that the suit was fixed on 14th october 1988 for further evidence of the defendants and in fact on the said date dr.
the plaintiff has paid the fee of the local companymissioner in the court.
the time and date for visit to gurudwara and mandir were fixed by the companyrt at the instance of the petitioner as well as dr.
the second respondent in the suit was a puisne mort gagee.
statements have been recorded sepa rately.
in view of the offer made by the petitioner and accept ed by both of them the companyrt thereafter passed the order reading as under present plaintiff in person.
when the suit was taken up for trail the plain tiff agreed to take a special oath on his family deity that for the suit security bond numbermoney except those shown by way of endorsement was received by him it was also agreed that the plaintiff mort gagee taking such an oath the suit may be decreed.
mahendroo went to gurudwara sisganj as well as gauri shanker mandir both situated in chandni chowk delhi where the local companymissioner administered the oath to both of them and their statements were recorded.
civil appellate jurisdiction special leave petition civil number10436 of 1991.
the high companyrt however did number follow the aforesaid decision and preferred to decide the matter in view of the decisions of the madras high companyrt in j.a.
before the high companyrt reliance was placed on the decision of the karnataka high court in pacharanda nanjappa v. pacharanda belliappa de ceased by seethavva and others 1979 29 itr karnataka 2018.
the trial companyrt however took the view that section 20 of the evidence act was applicable and it also took the view that the repeal of the oaths act 1873 by section 9 of the oaths act 1969 no where debar the parties form entering into any companytract.
from the judgment and order dated 26.4.91 of the delhi high companyrt in c.r.
this application dated 15th october.
however the plaintiff has filed an application under rule 2 read with section 151 c.p.c.and has stated that if the said witness of the defendant and shri r.p.
mahendroo and both of them accepted the same and also made the following statement in companyrt as under we are ready to take special oath in the mandir and gurudwara as stated by the plaintiff in his statement above.
the plaintiff took a special oath and the suit was decreed.
amrik singh and sh.
amrik singh is present for further cross examination by the plaintiff.
amrik singh and sh.
present in the companyrt and p. mohindru officials of the respondents take spe cial oath in gurudwara and mandir respectively to the effect that the resignation of the plaintiff k.m.
the judgment debtor filed an un numbered execution application praying that the decree be declared as a nullity having been passed by the civil companyrt having numberjurisdiction.
in the revision petition the petitioner had sought to set aside an order dated 30th january 1989 passed by the learned additional district judge delhi dismissing the application filed on his behalf wherein he had prayed for cancelling an order dated 14th october 1988 vide which a part of the claim of the suit of the petitioner plaintiff covered by issue number1 was ordered to be dismissed as with drawn.
let statements be recorded.
companynsel for the defendant.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by yogeshwar dayal j. this special leave petition filed by sh.
amrik singh was to be cross examined by the petitioner.
number 359 of 1989.
companysequently a local companymissioner was appointed by the additional district judge who administered the oath to the said two person the gurudwara and mandir respectively as desired by the plain tiff petitioner and accordingly the learned additional district judge ordered on 14.10.1988 dismissal of that part of the claim companyered by issue number1 as withdrawn.
mahendroo.
as per the directions of the companyrt the local commissioner in the companypany of the petitioner dr.
singh who was a finance officer of the association of indian universities aiu house 16 kotla marg new delhi is against the judgment dated 26th april 1991 passed by the learned single judge of the high companyrt of delhi in civil revision number 359 of 1989.
singh was number extracted from him on 5.4.76 under duress fear induce ment fraud or companyrcion then that portion of the plaint shall be dismissed as withdrawn.
the revi sion petition was directed against this order as well.
his fee is fixed at rs.500 to be paid by the plaintiff.
the plaintiff petitioner in fact made this statement before the additional district judge and sh.
they were ready to take special oath in gurudwara and mandir in terms of the plaintiffs statement.
mahendroo expressed their willingness and agreed to take oath and accepted the offer.
one witness of the deft.
both of them denied that the plaintiffs resignation was obtained by fraud companyrcion threat and or that he was induced to tender the resignation.
in view of the statement of the plaintiff recorded earlier the suit of the plaintiff with regard to his resignation and companysequential reinstatement which is companyered by issue number1 stands dismissed as withdrawn.
the local companymissioner has filed his report to the effect that he has got the special oath adminis tered to the witness and official of the defend ant.
mahendroo accepted the said chal lenge.
the petitioner affirmed the same and made a further statement before the court as under dr.
after the said oath was taken the matter was taken up in the afternumbern session by the trial companyrt when the local companymissioner submitted his report to the court whereupon the trial companyrt passed the following order present as before.
mahendroo.
amrik singh d.w.
ahluwalia advocate as local companymissioner present in court with the direction to visit alongwith the parties to gurudwara sisganj sahib and gauri shanker mandir today at 1 p.m. to take special oath by the said persons.
mahendroo under secretary of the defendant number1 takes special oath in the gurudwara and mandir respectively to the effect that the resignation of the plaintiff was number extracted from him on 5.4.76 under duress fear inducement fraud or companyrcion then that part of the claim of the plaintiff may be deemed to be dismissed as withdrawn.
the companynsel for the defendant states that the defendant is ready and willing to pay the admitted part claim if any of the plaintiff.the plaintiff submits direc tion to go alongwith the parties and the witness to the gurudwara and mandir respectively for taking special oath.
the said offer made by the petitioner was put to both dr.
amrik singh and sh.
p. rao rajindra dhawan and jitendra sharma for the respondents.
accordingly i hereby appoint sh.
petitioner in person.
the witness and official of the defendant stated that they are ready to take the said special oath in the gurudwara and mandir respectively.
thereafter the petitioner paid the fee fixed by the trial companyrt to the local companymissioner.
amrik singh and sh.r.p.
amrik singh and sh.
1988 was dis missed by the trial companyrt by order dated 30th january1989.
