1986 PLP 2626 (CLC)

‑‑‑

0. VI & R. 17‑‑Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980), Ss. 3 & 4‑‑Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 20‑‑Amendment of pleadings‑‑Plaintiffs originally titling their suit as admiralty suit with prayer for filing arbitration agreement and consequential relief treating it as a suit under S.20, Arbitration Act‑‑Plaintiffs alternatively prayed that if relief claimed by them could not be entertained under Arbitration Act, then matter might be treated as suit in rem‑‑Plaintiff had been pleading alternative claim from the very beginning and relief claimed by them was consistent with averments made in plaint‑‑Objections raised on behalf of defendants not appearing valid‑‑Amendment sought neither likely to change nature of plaint nor raising inconsistent plea‑ Amendment of plaint allowed in circumstances. P L D 1985 S C 345 rel. The plaintiffs have filed this application for amendment of the plaint by adding the following prayer:‑ "Pass judgment and decree against defendant: No.l for a sum equal to US $325,000 and against other defendant for further sum equal to 25$ of the value of all cargo, freight, bunkers, stores and all goods on board the vessel at the time of salvage converted into Pakistan currency at the rate of exchange on the "YCM date of decree." Originally the plaintiffs had entitled the suit as admiralty suit, but the prayer was for filing arbitration agreement and consequential reliefs. In fact, they had treated it as a suit under section 20 of the Arbitration Act. By an order, dated 18‑12‑1984 it was held that in the facts and circumstances of the case such a suit was not maintainable, and the plaintiffs were allowed 15 days time to take necessary action. The plaintiffs then paid the maximum court‑fee and applied for the aforestated amendment. According to Mr. Sarwana amendment will not change the cause of action, or the nature of the claim. On the other hand Mr. M.H. Kazmi, Mr. Noor Muhammad and Mr. Pishori Advocates ' have opposed the prayer mainly on the ground that as the original proceeding under section 20 of the Arbitration Act is not maintainable, by amendment, it cannot be converted into a suit. The plaintiffs have based their claim on the salvage agreement and in paragraph 23 pleaded that if the relief claimed by them cannot be entertained under the Arbitration Act, the matter may be treated as a suit in rem under the admiralty jurisdiction and undertook to pay the court‑fee. The plaintiffs have thus, pleaded alternative claim from the very beginning. They had not paid the court‑fee which they were prepared to pay and have paid now. As the proceeding under section 20 Arbitration Act has been held not maintainable, the plaintiffs wish to press their alternative claim. This is not a case where the plaintiffs have not pleaded their case which they want to press now. In fact they rely on the entire averments made in the plaint, but wish to change the reliefs which is consistent with the averments made in the plaint. The objections raised on behalf of the defendants does not seem to be valid, as neither the amendment will change the nature of the plaint, nor any inconsistent plea is being raised. The plaintiffs wish to amend their prayer. The principle of allowing amendment in pleading therefore, allow the plaintiffs to amend the plaint filed section 20 of the Arbitration Act by adding the prayer mentioned the application under consideration. The reliefs Nos. 1 and 2 shall deleted, and after adding the aforestated relief it will be re‑numbered properly. It is further ordered that from the title of the plaint words 'section 20 of the Arbitration Act (1940) for referring the matter of salvage award read with' shall be deleted. The plaintiffs should file amended plaint within two weeks. The court‑fee already paid shall be appropriated towards this plaint. M . Y . H . Petition allowed.