1. This is an application for revision under the-following circumstances. The suit was one on a pro-note. In the course of the suit the defendant agreed to abide by the oath of one of the plaintiffs, Mithu Lal. On a subsequent date, before the oath could be administered, he wished to withdraw from his application on the ground that Mithu Lal had been won over by the other plaintiff, his son, to swear a false oath. A. witness was put in to prove this fact but both the courts below have concurred in rejecting his evidence as false. The plaintiff Mithu Lal took the required oath, and on the basis of his evidence the learned Munsif decreed the suit. The defendant appealed to the District Judge. The District Judge agreed with the Munsif as to the worthlessness of the evidence of collusion but remanded the case to the Munsif to take further evidence on the facts. On the basis of this evidence the learned Judge came to the conclusion that in reality there was no consideration for the pro-note and that the statement made by Mithu Lal on oath was false. From this he came to the, conclusion that there must have been collusion between the two plaintiffs. Such a procedure on the part of the District Judge cannot be supported. It has the effect of entirely nullifying the agreement made by the defendant to abide by Mithu Lal's bath. The oath to be taken was in the ordinary form and may not be specifically covered by Sections 8 and 9 of the Oaths Act. There is authority of this Court in the cases of Muhammad Asghar Ali Khan v. Imtiaz Ali Weekly Notes 1898 p. 1923 and Kesho Ram v. Peare Lal (1923) A.L.J. 209, that this does not affect the validity of the agreement. If the court, notwithstanding such an agreement, is to be at liberty to enter into evidence as to the truth or falsehood of the statement made, the effect in substance is to wipe out the agreement altogether; it might not as well have been entered into. When a party agrees to abide by the oath of the other-party or of any particular witness, he clearly takes the risk of the witness swearing falsely.' What he says in effect is: 'Whatever this witness states on oath, I am prepared to accept as true and to have the case decided on the basis of it.' The court below has in this case acted illegally and with material irregularity in entering into evidence on the question of consideration and in setting aside the decree of the Munsif. I accordingly allow the present application, and setting aside the decree of the learned District Judge restore the decree of the Munsif. Under the special circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs in this Court.