Judgment :- Plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the suit against the defendants (respondents) for perpetual injunction restraining them from entering i mo the plaint schedule property or in any manner interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Defendants contested the suit contending inter alia that plaintiff has no right or possession over the plaint schedule property and it is in their possession. During the course of trial the parties agreed for deciding the case on the basis of taking oath at Jumayat Mosque at Mampuram. On 2-6-1981 the parties filed an affidavit before the trial court in which it is agreed that if defendants 1 to 3 took oath in the mosque as per the wordings of the oath mentioned in the affidavit the suit can be dismissed and that on the other hand, if they failed to take the oath the suit should be decreed. 2. First defendant alone took the oath on 12-6-1981 from the mosque. Contention of the plaintiff is that the oath was not taken in accordance with the wordings of the oath as suggested in the affidavit filed before the Court by the parties on 2-6-1981. Plaintiff filed I.A.671 of 1981 before the trial Court alleging Unit the oath taken by the first defendant on 12-6-1981 is not in accordance with the manner and substance of the oath agreed to be taken as per the affidavit dated 2-6-1981 and hence suit has to be disposed of in accordance with the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case. 3. P.W.1 and D.W.1 were already examined before the Court. Exts. A-1 to A-11, Exts. B-1 to B-23 and Exts. C-1 and C-2 were already marked. The trial court dismissed I.A.671 of 1981 and on the same day dismissed the suit on the basis of the oath taken by the first defendant. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, plaintiff filed A.S.59 of 1981 before the Sub Court, Manjeri. The Sub Judge dismissed the appeal holding that there is nothing wrong in deciding the suit on the basis of the oath agreement as parties have agreed to such a course. 5. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, plaintiff filed A.S.59 of 1981 before the Sub Court, Manjeri. The Sub Judge dismissed the appeal holding that there is nothing wrong in deciding the suit on the basis of the oath agreement as parties have agreed to such a course. 5. Contention of the plaintiff is that as the oath taken by the first defendant is challenged by him as that has become a controversial issue the trial Court ought to have taken evidence with regard to it and ought not to have automatically dismissed the suit banking on the report of the Amin. It is further contented that 0.23 R.3A was not in force when the suit was dismissed and merely because the parties in ignorance have agreed to such a course the Munsiff should not have acted on the basis of the oath taken by the first defendant. In oilier words, it is contended that at the time when the suit was dismissed 0.23 R.3A was not in the statute and in view of S.74 of the Amending Act the entire R.3A has been deleted and so the Munsiff lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the suit, 6. Order 23 R.3A postulates settlement of disputes by oath. R.3A reads: "If the parties agree to have the suit or any part of it decided by an oath taken by one of them in Court or elsewhere and lender a written agreement signed by both of them selling forth the terms of the oath and the place where it is taken, the Court may accept such agreement. After the oath has been taken in the manner proposed, the Court shall decide the case in terms of the agreement. After the agreement has been accepted by the Court, it shall not be competent to any of the parties to withdraw therefrom without the leave of the Court. If any party withdraws or refuses to take the oath without lawful excuse, the Court may decide the case against him or pass such other order as it deems proper." Section 74 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 has made amendment to Order 23 and as a result' of it R.3A is no longer there. If any party withdraws or refuses to take the oath without lawful excuse, the Court may decide the case against him or pass such other order as it deems proper." Section 74 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 has made amendment to Order 23 and as a result' of it R.3A is no longer there. Section 97(1) of the Amending Act provides that any amendment made, or any provision inserted in the principal Act by a State Legislature or a High Court before the commencement of this Act shall, except in so far as such amendment or provision is consistent with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act, stand repealed. In view of the repeal of R.3A, contention of the plaintiff is that :the agreement between the parties dated 2-6-1981 cannot have any legal basis particularly when the law as it stood then did not provide for settlement of the disputes by oath. 7. Counsel for the defendants submitted that though R.3A is not there the oath taken is pursuant to the agreement between the parties and due recognition and significance can be attached to it. As the parties have chosen the civil court for resolution of the controversy between them, the Court cannot abdicate its jurisdiction to decide the issue on the basis of taking oath by the parties particularly when R.3 A has been deleted from the Code by the Amending Act, Parties could not have agreed for a decision of their suit on the basis of oath as per R.3A. As already noted, R.3 A was not there in the Code at the time when the parties agreed to the decision of their case on the basis of oath. When there is no such provision in the Code, parties could not have availed of it. Merely because the parties were totally unaware of the legal position, the Court cannot ignore the provision of law at the time when the decision was taken by the Court. The judgment and decree of the Courts below cannot be sustained as the decision is rendered on the basis of the oath taken by the first defendant. 8. Plaintiff's counsel submitted that several documents have been produced before the Court and the Courts below have not considered the same and the suit happened to be dismissed on erroneous perception of law. 8. Plaintiff's counsel submitted that several documents have been produced before the Court and the Courts below have not considered the same and the suit happened to be dismissed on erroneous perception of law. The matter requires consideration afresh. The judgment and decree of the Courts below are set aside. The appeal is allowed and the case is remanded to the trial court for de novo consideration and disposal in accordance with law. Second appeal stands allowed.