2026 PLP 212 (CLC)

RAHEEL KAMRAN, J.

Through this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 03.05.2024 passed by the Civil Judge, Sargodha, whereby application filed by petitioners-plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) seeking amendment in the plaint was partly allowed as well as order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sargodha, whereby civil revision filed by the petitioners against the order passed by the Civil Judge was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are arbitrary, perverse, and contrary to both the law and the facts, thereby leading to a miscarriage of justice. He maintains that the sought amendments do not contradict the original plaint; instead, they serve to elaborate and clarify existing pleadings, which is a permissible practice. Learned counsel emphasizes that the petitioners application was partly declined merely on the ground of delay, whereas according to Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C., an amendment can be sought at any stage of proceedings if it is necessary to determine the real question in controversy. Learned counsel further argues that the refusal to allow these amendments will cause irreparable loss and prejudice to the petitioners case because any evidence presented that goes beyond the pleadings will not be considered by the court and this would effectively deny them a fair opportunity to prove their case.

3. Heard. Available record perused.

4. The trial court in the impugned order dated 03.05.2024 recorded the following findings:- Above findings were affirmed by the Additional District Judge by way of impugned order dated 23.06.2025.

5. In the instant case, the controversy revolves around the interpretation and application of Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.), which reads as under:-

17. Amendment of pleadings. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Plain reading of above provision suggests that an application for amendment of pleadings under Rule 17 ibid can be moved at any stage of proceedings. However, authority of the court under the aforementioned Rule remains discretionary. This is manifest not only from the use of word may but also in such manner and on such terms as may be just in that provision. Nonetheless, guideline has been provided by the legislature to the effect that only such amendments to the pleadings are to be allowed which are necessary for determining real questions in controversy between the parties. The discretionary power under Rule 17 ibid is, however, further guided by principles enunciated by the superior courts from time to time. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Abaid Ullah Malik v. Additional District Judge, Mianwali and others (PLD 2013 SC 239) elaborated some of the principles governing exercise of such discretionary power in the following terms:- There can be no cavil that the court has ample authority and discretion to allow amendments of the pleadings in appropriate cases, which authority may be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the trial, and in certain cases amendments can be permitted at the stage of appeal or even in the revisional jurisdiction. There also can be no disagreement that the power and authority in allowing the amendments shall be liberally exercised, however, keeping in view the salutary rule, that the proposed amendment(s) is/are expedient for the purposes of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, it should not alter the nature of the suit or the defence. Similarly, at the same time some important fundamentals should also not be lost in sight and must be kept in mind by the courts while exercising such authority, in that, the amendment sought/proposed must not be tainted with dishonesty of purposes; it is not meant to withdraw and resile from an admission made in the pleadings of the parties; it should not cause prejudice to the opposite side, particularly to deprive such (opposite) side of a benefit attained by it from the evidence adduced on the record by the party asking for the amendment; the conduct and the motive of the party and the object/purpose behind the request for the amendment. (Emphasis supplied by this Court)

6. In the application for amendment, the petitioners sought to delete of the plaint and to add amended in its place, which prayer was allowed by the trial court. This amendment related to the receipts for the sale consideration. The trial court observed that these receipts were already mentioned in the original plaint and were part of the record. This part of proposed amendment was correctly deemed a clarification and necessary for the proper adjudication of the existing controversy.

7. The second amendment sought by the petitioners was to assert the following paragraph at the end of paragraph No.1 of the plaint:- A copy of the amended plaint is annexed with the plaint, perusal whereof indicates that in paragraph No.1, the petitioners have claimed that their predecessor in interest purchased the suit plot from predecessor in interest of defendants Nos. 1 to 4/e more than 44 years ago; the agreed upon sale consideration had been paid; possession of the plot had been delivered to the purchaser. The relevant extract from paragraph No.1 of the plaint is reproduced below:- A side by side comparison of the original plaint and the proposed insertions reveals that the proposed amendments are not just a clarification, but a complete overhaul of the factual matrix. It seeks to introduce, for the very first time, the specific date of the alleged agreement, the names of three witnesses, the exact time and place of the transaction and a detailed breakdown of installment payments with specific dates and amounts. These are not minor details rather foundational facts that form the very basis of the cause of action.

8. The timing of filing of application for amendment by the petitioners is also critically important. There is no cavil with the position that delay for itself, cannot be adequate reason for refusing an amendment, yet this is not a case where an amendment is sought shortly after the filing of the suit upon discovery of a bona fide mistake. The suit was instituted more than a decade ago. It has undergone a full trial, a decision, and an appeal, and was subsequently remanded. Throughout the entire first round of litigation, the petitioners never breathed a word about the specific facts they now wish to plead. As noted by the courts below in the impugned orders, petitioners witnesses while in the witness box, did not depose to these facts. This profound silence at the most opportune moments leads to the inference that the proposed amendment is an afterthought, designed to fill the lacunae and cure the defects exposed in the first round of the litigation. The plea that the omission was due to the ill advice of a previous counsel is clearly a weak and unconvincing excuse, which cannot be allowed to operate to the prejudice of respondents.

9. The courts below have exercised their jurisdiction judiciously and in accordance with the settled principles of law governing the amendment of pleadings. Learned counsel for the petitioners failed to point out any illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the courts below, warranting interference of this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

10. For the foregoing reasons, instant petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed in limine. Office is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the trial court, forthwith. UN/K-20/L Petition dismissed.