S. N. BHATTACHARJEE, J. ( 1 ) -THIS revisional application has been preferred against the order No. 8 dated 26. 5. 98 passed by learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court at Alipore in Civil Revision No. 295 of 1997 affirming the order dated 13. 5. 97 passed by the learned 3rd Court of the Assistant District Judge at Alipore in title suit No. 286 of 1986. This revisional application has been preferred against the order No. 8 dated 26. 5. 98 passed by learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court at Alipore in Civil Revision No. 295 of 1997 affirming the order dated 13. 5. 97 passed by the learned 3rd Court of the Assistant District Judge at Alipore in title suit No. 286 of 1986. ( 2 ) THE Opposite Party herein as plaintiff instituted title suit No. 286 of 1986 for declaration of title in the suit property and other reliefs. The dispute between the parties was whether the suit property standing in the name of the defendant No. 1 was purchased by the defendant himself with his own money or by the plaintiff. The peremptory hearing of the suit was fixed on 9. 6. 93. On 5. 6. 93 the plaintiff made an application before the learned trial Judge that the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 will bind themselves to special oath before a Commissioner at Kali Temple or to Dhakeswari Mandir at Koomartooly to speak out the truth on fact in issue. The petition was opposed by the defendant contending, inter alia, that although the application is not otherwise maintainable in law as the provisions of administering special oath have been repealed and all the questions relating to the subject matter of the suit are beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Court in view of section 4 of Benami Transactions Prohibition Act, 1988, the defendant is ready and willing to affirm the statement as to payment of consideration for the purchase of the disputed plot on special oath by touching the holy feet of Sree Sree Kalimata Thakurani at Kalighat on solemn undertaking of the plaintiff that she should be bound by such statement and to suffer judgment on the basis thereof. This application along with the objection was heard and disposed of by the learned trial Judge by directing the defendant No. 1 to make the statement as to the payment of consideration money for the purchase of the disputed plot from Smt. Sipra Chatterjee on May 15, 1975 under special oath by touching the holy feet of Goddess Kalimata Thakurani at Kalighat before Local Commissioner appointed by the Court in the presence of the senior advocates of the parties and the plaintiff. Against this order the defendant preferred revisional application before the learned Additional District Judge on the ground that the Court below was not justified in allowing the prayer for administering special oath without directing the plaintiff to give undertaking in proper form that she would be bound by statement of the defendant to be given on special oath. The learned Additional District Judge disposed of the said revisional application by modifying the trial Judge's order dated 9. 6. 93 directing the plaintiff to file an affidavit within one month to be granted by the learned trial Court to the effect that she would be bound by special oath to be taken by the defendant and that the judgment would be passed on the basis of such statement. In default of such affidavit being sworn within the prescribed time the plaintiff's prayer for special oath by the defendant No. 1 shall stand dismissed. The plaintiff thereafter swore affidavit framing as may as 8 questions to be asked to the defendant No. 1 by the Commissioner before Goddess Kalimata and to be answered by the defendant No. 1 by touching the feet of Goddess Kali in the Temple. The affidavit was filed beyond the time fixed by the learned revisional Court. The defendant filed objection thereto. The learned trial Judge disposed of the petition and the objection by his order dated 13. 5. 97 whereby he condoned the delay in filing affidavit and also allowed the enlargement of questions except question No. (e) and (f ). The learned trial Judge directed the defendant to answer the questions before the Commissioner appointed by the learned trial Judge. Against this order the defendant again filed revisional application which was disposed of by order dated 26. 5. The learned trial Judge directed the defendant to answer the questions before the Commissioner appointed by the learned trial Judge. Against this order the defendant again filed revisional application which was disposed of by order dated 26. 5. 98 in the following manner by the learned Additional District Judge,"in my opinion, the Court below before, whom the suit is pending, quite competent to enlarge the questions. The case laws reported above are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The revisional Court i. e. 6th Addl. District Judge, Alipore allowed the question as to whether payment was made by the defendant No. 1 by touching the feet of Goddess Kali and did not restrict the O. P. /plaintiff to make any further question relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case. In my opinion, the revisional Court i. e. 6th A. D. J. Alipore did not dispose of the matter finally. Whatever, it may be, when the petitioner/defendant No. 1 in his objection dated 8. 7. 96 in its para 12 has agreed to be bound to state the truth on the subject matter of the suit on special oath and has reiterated it in para 6 of the revisional application and that the added questions are on the subject matter of the suit, I do not find any illegality in allowing it by the Court below. " ( 3 ) AGAINST this order the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred. ( 4 ) IT has been contended by Mr. Das Gupta appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the learned revisional Court acted illegally by affirming the order of the learned trial Judge whereby time fixed by the learned revisional Court was illegally extended for filing affidavit and by allowing several questions to be answered by the petitioner although the original application of the O. P. was limited to the question of payment only. Mr. Das Gupta has also, pointed out that the original application under section 9 and 12 of the Oaths Act was filed on 5. 6. 93 long after the written statement filed by the petitioner. Mr. Das Gupta has also, pointed out that the original application under section 9 and 12 of the Oaths Act was filed on 5. 6. 93 long after the written statement filed by the petitioner. In paragraph 25 of the written statement the defendant stated,"this defendant reiterates its statement contained in foregoing paragraph and maintaining that he is the rightful owner of the land leased out to the plaintiff by the leased deed dated 15. 10. 76 which he acquired by purchase against the sale deed dated 15. 5. 75 against valuable consideration of Rs. 30,000/- which this defendant personally paid to the vendor through the plaintiff and in no part of the said consideration was ever paid by the plaintiff. (Emphasis mine) ( 5 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Das Gupta in view of this defence in the written statement the question of taking special oath in respect of the questions suggested by the petitioner and accepted by the Court does not arise. ( 6 ) MR. Chowdhury, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has submitted that in the written objection against the affidavit of questions the petitioner admitted that he is agreeable to state of special oath in res-pect of the matters relating to suit and that is the justification of the trial Judge to direct him to answer the questions in a temple before the Commissioner and that the learned Additional District Judge in passing the revisional order did not commit any mistake by affirming the order of the trial Judge. ( 7 ) IT is, therefore, very clear that the petitioner is not willing to answer the enlarge questions on special oath before the Commissioner by touching holy feet of Goddess Kali to as the number of questions framed the Opposite Party/plaintiff, are at various with the original application. In the written statement his categorical statement is that he paid consideration money to the vendor through the plaintiff. Against this stand the application was filed by the plaintiff/o. P. for swearing on special oath. In the written statement his categorical statement is that he paid consideration money to the vendor through the plaintiff. Against this stand the application was filed by the plaintiff/o. P. for swearing on special oath. Subsequently, the O. P. has changed the question in the following form; (a)did you pay from your own money and yourself to the vendor * * * * * * ( 8 ) THIS questions is not consistent with the stand taken by the defendant in the written statement and, therefore, if the petitioner declines to make such statement on oath he cannot be compelled to do so by the Court. Then again the O. P. also is not satisfied if it is stated by the defendant on special oath that the defendant paid money through the plaintiff. A party cannot be compelled to answer the large number of questions before a Commissioner in a holly place by taking special oath against his wish. ( 9 ) SECTION 9 (1 and 2) of the Indian Oaths Act, 1873 reads as follows :- (1) "the Indian Oaths Act, 1873 is hereby repealed. " (2) "where in any proceeding pending at the commencement of this Act, the parties here agreed to be bound by any such oath or affirmation as is specified in specified in section 8 of the said Act, then notwithstanding the repeal of the said Act, the provisions of sections 9 and 12 of the said Act shall continue to apply in relation to such agreement as if this Act had not been passed. " ( 10 ) THEREFORE, unless the parties agree for disposal of proceedings on the basis of special oath and there is dispute over the questions to be answered by one of the parties the Court has no jurisdiction to direct one of the parties to take oath on the basis of such questions as are formulated by the opposite party or by the Court. The learned Courts below sisinterpreted the objections at paragraph 12 for the purpose of holding that the defendant had been agreeable to answer the questions on special oath without going through the defence taken by the petitioner in the written statement. When the parties do not agree to the questions acceptable to the both, the Court has no jurisdiction to bind the parties by special oath. When the parties do not agree to the questions acceptable to the both, the Court has no jurisdiction to bind the parties by special oath. The learned Court, below have acted without jurisdiction in directing the petitioner to answer the enlarged questions on special oath rejecting the objection of the petitioner. That being the position the impugned order is set aside. The learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the suit in a regular trial in accordance with provisions of Evidence Act as expeditiously as possible. The petition is thus disposed of without any order as to costs. Order set aside