JUDGMENT
1. This is an application in revision by the defendant Ram Ratan, His mother Mt. Dukhni was also a defendant whom the plaintiff in his amended plaint had alleged to be a pro-forma defendant who had no interest in the property. At the trial the plaintiff and the defendant Ram Ratan agreed to abide by the statement of one Bihari Singh on oath before the Court. Bihari Singh made his statement on oath and the trial Court pronounced its judgment in accordance with the statement of Bihari Singh. On appeal the District Judge has held that inasmuch as there was no such agreement on behalf of Mt. Dukhni the case should be disposed of on the merits as against her.
2. Ram Ratan wants that the whole case should be retried and should not be bound by the statement of Bihari Singh. In our opinion the case fell under Oaths Act. Under Section 9 the defendant Ram Ratan had offered to be bound by the oath of any witness and under Section 11 the evidence so given shall, as against the person who offered to be bound, be conclusive proof of the matter stated. It is therefore clear that Ram Ratan cannot be allowed to resile from that position. His offer that the case should be decided in accordance with the statement of Bihari Singh undoubtedly amounted to an offer to be bound by his deposition. Sections 9 and 11 of the Act do not require that all the parties in a suit should agree to be so bound. The evidence given is binding as against those parties who have offered to be bound.
3. The view taken by the learned District Judge was correct and there is no ground for interference in revision. The application is dismissed with costs including, in this Court fees on the higher scale.