1983 PLP 2785 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND OTHERS‑Appellants Versus ABDUL AZIZ‑Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 2785 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND OTHERS‑Appellants Versus ABDUL AZIZ‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 2785 (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 1983 PLP 2785 (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: 1983 PLP 2785 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND OTHERS‑Appellants Versus ABDUL AZIZ‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khadim Nadeem Malik for Petitioners.
- Mian Muhammad Sharif Salim for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th January, 1983. 1 go
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑
0. VI, r. 17‑Amendment of written statement‑Petitioner seeking amendment, of written statement for adding preliminary objection of limitation‑Trial Court. rejecting application as not supported by any document and that petitioner having not shown sufficient cause‑Held, application rejected on frivolous ground Case was not at much advanced stage as evidence of one party yet to be recorded‑No prejudice caused to any party‑Amendment allowed in circumstances of case.‑[Pleadings)
Judgment & Decree
The facts giving rise to this revision in brief are that` on 15th May, 1979, Muhammad Hussain and 7 others, the petitioners herein, purchased the land measuring 211 Kanals and 16 Marlas situated in village Hafix Siddiq, Teh. Pakpattan. Abdul Aziz, respondent filed a suit for possession by pre‑emption on 17th May, 1980. The petitioners/defendants filed written statement; issues were framed and evidence of the plaintiff was t recorded, when on 24th February 1982, the petitioners herein, moved application under Order Vi, rule 17, C.P.C. for permission to amend the written statement by adding following preliminary objections. This application was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff. On 16th June. 1982, the learned trial Court after hearing the parties dismissed the appli cation for amendment on the grounds that the petitioners/defendants had not appended any documentary proof in support of their version for ex facie proof of question of limitation of the suit therefore, the proposed amendment was afterthought. Furthermore, the applicants had not shown sufficient and good reasons for the amendment.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application of amendment was rejected without legal justification. As against this the learned counsel for the respondent has defended the impugned order by reiterating the reason given by the trial Court.
3. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the material available before me, I find that the application was rejected on frivolous grounds inasmuch as the applicant was not required under the law to append the documentary proof to support the proposed amendment. In fact that was not a stage to call upon the petitioners to substantiate the proposed preliminary objection. Furthermore, in the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the proposed amendment was afterthought. The amendment related to the question of limitation in a pre‑emption suit. The case was not at much advanced stage because the evidence of a party was yet to be recorded. In case the amendment is allowed, it would no prejudice the respondent/plaintiff as they would be given an opportunity to meet the issue of limitation set up by petitioners/defendants by the proposed amendment. I am of the view that in matter of amendment under Order VI, rule 17, the Courts should be lenient. For these reasons, I am convinced that the learned trial Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction in the matter of the amendment of the pleadings without legal justification.
4. For what has, been stated above, the revision is accepted and while setting aside the impugned order of the trial Court, the amendment sought for by the petitioners is, hereby, allowed subject to the payment of Rs. 200 as costs. M.A.K. Petition accepted.