Present: Jayewardene A.J. 1923.

RANKIRA v. SETUWA.

130-C. R. Gampola, 5,633.

Decisory oath-Oath to be administered in the very terms agreed upon- Party agreeing to take the oath may refuse to take oath if the form is varied-Party challenging cannot back out of challenge if failure to take oath was due to variation inform of oath.

Where a person agrees to take a specified oath, the oath must be administered in the very terms in which the oath is worded.
Where the failure to take the oath on the day specified was due to the person administering the oath asking him to take the oath in a slightly altered form, he is entitled to insist upon his being allowed to take the oath, and the party challenging is not entitled to withdraw from it.

THE facts appear from the judgment.

Navaratnam, for plaintiff, appellant.-The oath that the appellant was called upon to take was not precisely the same ss the oath he had agreed to take. The omission of the word sampoorana (full) from the former makes all the difference. The assertion that, in substance, the two oaths are the same does not solve the difficulty. A departure from the precise terms of the oath