2001 PLP 1703 (MLD)
KARAM ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FAQIR BAKHSH‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1703 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Najmul Hassan Kazmi, J |
| Parties | KARAM ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FAQIR BAKHSH‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1703 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 1703 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Najmul Hassan Kazmi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1703 (MLD) (KARAM ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FAQIR BAKHSH‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Muhammad Anwar Shah for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th June, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O. VI, R.17,& S.152‑‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.8‑‑‑Suit for possession‑‑‑Amendment of plaint and decree sheet‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑During pendency of appeal against judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the plaintiffs filed application under O.VI. R.17, C.P.C. for correction of the plaint and also the decree‑sheet by way of amendment which application was allowed by the Appellate Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Court was competent to 'allow amendment in the decree‑sheet and also in the plaint by virtue of 5.152, C.P.C. even if the suit had finally been disposed of‑‑‑Delay in filing application to seek amendment would not, by itself, be a ground to refuse said amendment‑‑‑Amendment was always granted if it was necessary to decide the real matter in issue or if by allowing amendment in the plaint real matter could be settled once for all‑‑‑If the amendment in the plaint was with regard to change of "Killa Number" of the property in dispute that would not result in changing the nature of the suit or the character of the plaint‑‑‑Order passed by Appellate Court not suffering from any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity, could not be interfered with. Manzoor Hussain and 9 others v. Malik Karam Khan and 2 others 1991 SCMR 2451; PLD 1985 SC 345; PLD 1973 Lah. 513 and PLD 1973 Lah. 506 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th June, 1999. This judgment will dispose of Civil Revision No. 576 of 1994 which calls in question order dated 30‑3‑1994 of the learned Additional District Judge allowing amendment in the plaint and decree.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are that Faqir Bakhsh, respondent herein, filed a suit for possession, which was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Liaqatpur vide judgment dated 24‑11‑1987. Feeling aggrieved petitioner went in appeal. During the pendency of the appeal an application under Order VI, Rule 17 of C.P.C. for correction of the plaint and also the decree‑sheet was filed which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge on 30‑3‑1994. Against the said order the present revision petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Additional District Judge could not allow change of property, in the plaint by way of amendment and in any case decree could not be amended. It was added that the grant of amendment will result in reopening the whole issue and the same will not be permissible in law.
4. The submissions made by the learned counsel are not well‑founded. .
5. So far as amendment in the plaint and also decree is concerned the Court is competent to allow amendment in the decree sheet and also in the plaint by virtue of section 152 of C.P.C. even if the suit has been finally disposed of. Reference can be made to Manzoor Hussain and 9 others v. Malik Karam Khan and 2 others (1991 SCMR 2451).
6. Insofar as the arguments that amendment was claimed at a belated stage, it is now settled rule that delay in filing application to seek amendment will not itself be a ground to refuse amendment. The amendment is always granted if it is necessary to decide the real matter in issue, or if by allowing amendment in the plaint real matter can be settled once for ever. It is also a rule that the power to allow amendment shall be liberally exercised. Reference can be made to PLD 1985 SC 345.
7. In this case, the amendment in the plaint was in regard to the change .of Killa Number. The change of Killa Number will not result in changing the nature of the suit or the character of the plaint. Reference can be made to PLD 1973 Lahore 513 and PLD 1973 Lahore 506.
8. In this view of the matter order passed by the learned Additional District Judge does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity If as a result of amendment some opportunity of additional evidence is deemed necessary, petitioner can approach the learned Additional District Judge for such permission which shall be granted to the petitioner to cover the situation which occurred on account of change of Killa Number. Subject to these observations this petition is dismissed. H.B.T./K‑74/L Petition dismissed.