1987 PLP 2548 (MLD)
ALLAH WASAYA and others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Vehari and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2548 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zafarullah, J |
| Parties | ALLAH WASAYA and others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Vehari and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2548 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 2548 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Zafarullah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 2548 (MLD) (ALLAH WASAYA and others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Vehari and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Ghani for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
O. VI, R.17--Amendment of pleadings, when allowed--No amendment could be allowed at any stage, but nobody could amendment as a matter of right and there must be sufficient to permit amendment--When there were no sufficient reasons amendment, Trial Court rightly disallowed application for of plaint.
Art.199--Constitutional petition, held, could not be a substitute of second revision petition, when revision petition had been dismissed by District Judge.--[Revision (civil)].
Judgment & Decree
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
O. VI, R.17--Amendment of pleadings, when allowed--No amendment could be allowed at any stage, but nobody could amendment as a matter of right and there must be sufficient to permit amendment--When there were no sufficient reasons amendment, Trial Court rightly disallowed application for of plaint. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
Art.199--Constitutional petition, held, could not be a substitute of second revision petition, when revision petition had been dismissed by District Judge.--[Revision (civil)]. Ch. Abdul Ghani for Petitioners. The petitioners brought a suit in 1980 seeking a declaration that the petitioners were lawfully entitled to the property left by Rahim Bakhsh, their predecessor-in-interest. After six years the moved an application for amendment of plaint in to incorporate, a challenge to the orders passed by the District Collector Multan 21-12-1970 and by Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) Mailsi c. 28-8-1971. The petitioners also sought to introduce a contention that their predecessor-in-interest Rahim Bakhsh was of unsound mind. The trial Court rejected the application on the ground that re-amendment could be allowed after such a delay and that it cannot be believed that the petitioners were not aware of the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was also observed that the mental condition of Rahim Bakhsh did not be unknown to the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the order of the trial Court dated 18-6-1986 in revision before the learned District Judge, Vehari but the revision petition was dismissed on 13-7-1986. This brings the petitioners to the High Court invoking it constitutional jurisdiction.
2. It is true that the amendment could be allowed at any stage but nobody can claim amendment as a matter of right. There have be sufficient reasons to permit the amendment. In the present cast the Court of competent jurisdiction has found that the claim of the petitioners that they were not aware of the orders now sought to be challenged by amendment, was not justified. Similarly it is obvious' that the mental condition of Rahim Bakhsh shall have been well-knows, to the petitioners at the time of the filing of the suit. T1ie order of the trial Court not to permit amendment of the plaint is, therefore, justified. Similarly, no objection can be taken to the order passed by the learned District Judge in revision. The writ petition cannot be a substitute of a second revision petition which for all intents and purpose it seeks to be. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./A-182/ L Petition dismissed.