It is a well-known rule that plaintiff must present evidence while the defendant can take the oath as a way of denial. So if a plaintiff couldn't present his evidence and the defendant was asked to take the oath, would the judge pass his judgement if the defendant refused to do so?

Would the refusal to take oath be considered in such case as a recognition of the plaintiff's right, or would it be considered as a sign of the plaintiff's truthfulness so he would be asked to take the oath to confirm his right?

The above mentioned question is the heart of the matter in this article. The article provides the evidences and proofs of the Pro's and Con's with regard to the judgement by refusal to take oath. It discusses the evidences and then select the suitable. Moreover, the article discusses this issue under the U.A.E. and Jordanian Civil Laws.

Included in

Jurisprudence Commons