2018 PLP 1004 (CLC)

ABDULLAH BALOCH, J.

This order disposes of Civil Revision Petition No.38 of 2017 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4th October, 2017 (hereinafter referred as, "impugned order") passed by the learned Additional Qazi Turbat (hereinafter referred as, "the trial Court") whereby the application under Order XIV, Rule 5, C.P.C. filed for framing/correction of additional issues was dismissed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and correction of entries against the defendants/respondents in the Court of Additional Qazi, Turbat, which was contested by the defendants/ respondents by means of filing written statement, wherein denied the claim of the petitioners/plaintiffs.

3. Out of the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed as many as 9 issues and thereafter the parties have submitted their list of witnesses; that the petitioner/plaintiff produced three witnesses as PWs-1, 2 and 3 and the case was fixed for further recording of evidence of petitioner; that meanwhile, the petitioner/plaintiff moved an application under Order XIV, Rules 1, 5 and section 151 of C.P.C. for correction and framing of additional issues before the learned trial Court; that after hearing the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 4th October, 2017; that the impugned order suffers from misreading and misappreciation of law; that the petitioner was deprived from his legal rights as under provision of Order XIV, Rules 1 and 5, C.P.C., Court at any stage can amend/frame additional issues for just decision of the case on merits, but this important provision of law was not considered by the learned trial Court and dismissed the application of the petitioner in an arbitrary manner, which resulted in grave miscarriage of justice with the petitioner; that the impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, which reveals that the suit for declaration, injunction and correction of mutation entries filed by the petitioners against the respondent before the learned trial Court in the year 2014, which was contested by the respondents/defendants by means of filing written statement, wherein denied the claim of the petitioner and Out of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as 9 issues for just decision of the case on merit on 25th February, 2016. It is pertinent to mention here that thereafter the petitioner in support of their claim produced as many as three witnesses and directed to produce its remaining witnesses.

5. The perusal of application filed under Order XIV, Rules 1 and 5, C.P.C. of petitioner does not disclose any reasonable ground to be necessary for amendments or framing of additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed. Even otherwise, after lapse of one and half year, the petitioners kept silent and nowhere raised any objection on the issues framed by the learned trial Court.

6. The perusal of impugned order passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity to warrant interfere by this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality and irregularity in the impugned order or bring any material on record to show that the issues so framed or to be framed are necessary for determining the matter in controversy between the parties. In view of the above, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed in limine. ZC/28/Bal. Revision dismissed.