Case: K.M. Singh Vs. Secretary Association of India Universities and others

3. 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 fraud, coercion and threat as well as the inducement as alleged in the plaint. This plea of the petitioner was subject matter of issue No. 1.4. During the course of the proceedings the petitioner had filed an application dated 14th October, 1988 purporting to under Order 10 Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this application it was prayed that if Sh. Amrik Singh and Sh. R.P. Mahendroo, officers of defendant No. 1, took special oath in Gurudwara and Mandir respectively to the effect that the resignation of the plaintiff was not extracted from him on 5th April, 1976 under duress, fear, inducement, fraud, coercion then that part of the claim might be dismissed as withdrawn. The plaintiff/petitioner in fact made this statement before the Additional District Judge and Sh. Amrik Singh and Sh. Mahendroo accepted the said challenge. They were ready to take special oath in Gurudwara and Mandir in terms of the plaintiffs statement. Consequently a local commissioner was appointed by the Additional District Judge who administered the oath to the said two persons in Gurudwara and Mandir respectively, as desired by the plaintiff/petitioner and accordingly the learned Additional District Judge ordered on 14.10. 1988 dismissal of that part of the claim covered by issue No. 1 as withdrawn. The revision petition was directed against this order as well.5. That on the next date i.e. 15th October, 1988 the plaintiff/petitioner filed another application with the prayer to decide the aforesaid issue No. 1 on merits and evidence and the defendants may not be allowed to take advantage of the blunder committed by the plaintiff/petitioner and for canceling thedated 14th October, 1988. This application dated 15th October, 1988 was dismissed by the trial Court by order dated 30th January, 1989.6. 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. Amrik Singh was to be cross-examined by the petitioner. Dr. Amrik Singh as well as Sh. R.P. Mahendroo, Under Secretary of the Association of Indian Universities were present in the Court 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. R.P. Mahendroo. Whereupon both Dr. Amrik Singh and Sh. R.P. Mahendroo expressed their willingness and agreed to take oath and accepted the offer. The petitioner affirmed the same and made a further statement before the Court asAmrik Singh D.W. present in the Court and R.P. Mahendroo, officials of the respondents take special oath in Gurduwara and Mandir respectively to the effect that the resignation of the plaintiff K.M. Singh was not extracted from him on 5.4.75 under duress, fear, inducement, fraud or coercion then that portion of the plaint shall be dismissed assaid offer made by the petitioners was put to both Dr. Amrik Singh and Sh. Mahendroo and both of them accepted the same and also made the following statement in Court asare ready to take special oath in the Mandir and Gurudwara as stated by the plaintiff in his statementview of the offer made by the petitioner and accepted by both of them the Court thereafter passed the order reading asin person.Counsel for the defendant.One witness of the deft. Dr. Amrik Singh is present for further cross-examination by the plaintiff. 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 Under Secretary of the defendant No. 1 takes special oath in the Gurudwara and Mandir respectively to the effect that the resignation of the plaintiff was not extracted from him on 5.4.76 under duress, fear, inducement, fraud or coercion, then that part of the claim of the plaintiff may be deemed to be dismissed asThe witness and official of the defendant stated that they are ready to take the said special oath in the Gurudwara and Mandir respectively. Let statements be recorded. Statements have been recorded separately. The application filed by the plaintiff stands disposed of. The Counsel 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 direction to go alongwith the parties and the witness to the Gurudwara and Mandir respectively for taking special oath. The plaintiff states that he is ready to bear the expenses of the local commissioner. Accordingly, I hereby appoint Sh. A.P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, as Local Commissioner 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. His fee is fixed at Rs. 500/- to be paid by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has paid the fee of the Local Commissioner in the Court.Thereafter the petitioner paid the fee fixed by the trial Court to the Local Commissioner. The time and date for visit to Gurudwaru and Mandir were fixed by the Court at the instance of the petitioner as well as Dr. Amrik Singh and Sh. Mahendroo. As per the directions of the Court the Local Commissioner in the company of the petitioner, Dr. Amrik Singh and Sh. Mahendroo went to Gurudwara Sisganj as well as Gauri Shanker Mandir both situated in Chandni Chowk, Delhi where the Local Commissioner administered the oath to both of them and their statements were recorded. Both of them denied that the plaintiffs resignation was obtained by fraud, coercion, threat and or that he was induced to tender the resignation. After the said oath was taken the matter was taken up in the afternoon session by the trial Court when the Local Commissioner submitted his report to the Court whereupon the trial Court passed theAs before.The Local Commissioner has filed his report to the effect that he has got the special oath administered to the witness and official of the defendant. In view of the statement of the plaintiff recorded earlier the suit of the plaintiff with regard to his resignation and consequential reinstatement which is covered by Issue No. 1 stands dismissed as withdrawn.Now to come 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 trial Court, 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 from entering into any contract.9. High Court, as stated earlier, dismissed the revision petition and agreed with the view of the trial Court. Before the High Court reliance was placed on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Pacharanda Nanjappa v. Pacharanda Belliappa deceased by Seethavva and Others. 1979—29 ILR (Karnataka) 2018. The High Court, however, did not follow the aforesaid decision and preferred to decide the matter in view of the decisions of the Madras High Court in J.A. Munnuswami Naidu v. K.S.P. Thyagaraya Chettiar and Another, AIR 1977, Madras 273; Vasudeva Shanbog v. Naraina Pal, (1880) ILR 2 Madras 356 decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rustam etc. v. The Financial Commissioner, etc., (1981-83 PLR 759) and Full Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mrs. Florabel Skinner and Others v. Jai Bajrang Kala Mandir Ram Lila Mandal, Hissar, AIR 1981 P&H 284.

Reasoning:
11. It may be noticed that both the learned Single Judge of the Karanataka High Court as well as the learned Division Bench of the Orissa High Court were correct in noticing the effect of repeal of the Oaths Act, 1873 by Section 9 of the Oaths Act, 1969. But it appears the provisions of Section 20 of the Evidence Act were not brought to their notice. The learned Judges of the Karnataka High Court and Orissa High Court were right in observing in what cases the provisions of the Oaths Act, 1873 was to continue to govern and in which cases they would cease to apply.It will be noticed that in the present case the oath wasas per plaintiffs/petitioners statement and, therefore, there is thus no manner of doubt that the oath taken by two persons in pursuance of the offer of the petitioner amounted to admission of respondents claim on his part within the meaning of Section 20 of the Evidence Act. The two persons were the nominees of the plaintiff and the statements of the nominees by virtue of Section 20 of the Evidence Act would be treated as an admission of the parties. Thus the orders of the trial Court dated 14th October, 1988 and 30th January, 1989 were unassailable and the High Court has rightly dismissed the revision petition.