AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Munro, J.—I doubt if any question of jurisdiction arises in this case, but, assuming such a question arises, I think the Sub-Judge is right on
the question regarding the oath. Though the plaintiff agreed generally to abide by the oath of the defendants and the defendants agreed to take an
oath in any form or in any place, still the form and place were never actually agreed upon. It is clear from Section 10 of the Oaths Act that the
agreement as to the oath must be such that the court is in a position to administer it forthwith. If, however, the form and place have not been
settled, the court cannot administer it Ayakannu Nadar v. Muthia Nadar (1906) 17 M.L.J. 99 is distinguished on the ground that there the form of
the oath had been agreed upon.
The petition is dismissed with costs.