1989 PLP 1064 (CLC)
ALLAH BACHAYA‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1064 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | ALLAH BACHAYA‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1064 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1064 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1064 (CLC) (ALLAH BACHAYA‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ashraf Mohandra for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑O.VI, R.17‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑Amendment of plaint‑‑Petitioner's application for amendment of plaint rejected‑ Revision also dismissed‑‑Orders impugned‑‑Orders passed being discretionary and conclusions arrived at with application of mind by Courts below and no provisions of law having been flouted, Constitutional petition was dismissed. Mst. Wazir Begum v. Mst. Sardar Begum and 7 others 1979 CLC 72 ref.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑O.VI, R.17‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑Amendment of plaint‑‑Petitioner's application for amendment of plaint rejected‑ Revision also dismissed‑‑Orders impugned‑‑Orders passed being discretionary and conclusions arrived at with application of mind by Courts below and no provisions of law having been flouted, Constitutional petition was dismissed. Mst. Wazir Begum v. Mst. Sardar Begum and 7 others 1979 CLC 72 ref. Muhammad Ashraf Mohandra for Petitioner. Through this constitutional petition, Allah Bachaya petitioner wants this Court to declare the order dated 19‑11‑1986 of the Civil Judge, Rahimyar Khan and order dated 1‑2‑1988 of the Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading to this petition briefly are that Allah Bachaya filed suit for possession on the basis of title against Muhammad Afzal respondent No.l. During the pendency of the suit, he moved application for permission to amend plaint. The application was rejected by the learned trial Court. Feeling aggrieved, he filed revision which was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan who dismissed it on 1‑2‑1988, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court had illegally rejected the application of the petitioner and that the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit. Reliance has been placed on Bahadur Shah and 2 others v. Sharaf and 9 others P L D 1973 Lah. 513 and Mst. Wazir Begum v, Mst. Sardar Begum and 7 others 1979 C L C 72 to further contend that permission to amend the plaint could be given at any stage of the proceedings.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that it was within the discretion of the trial Court to allow or refuse prayer for the amendment of the plaint, that the trial Court has given reasons in support of its order; that the appellate Court had also jurisdiction to set aside or confirm the A order of the trial Court. The learned Appellate Court has also applied mind and given reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by it. The learned Courts below have not flouted the provisions of relevant law. I do not see any defect of jurisdiction in the impugned orders. The submissions made by the learned counsel do not make out a case for interference with the impugned orders in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. For what has been said above, the petition is dismissed. M.Z.S. /A‑474/L Petition dismissed.