1986 PLP 583 (MLD)
TAJ MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 583 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | TAJ MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 583 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 583 (MLD)?
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: 1986 PLP 583 (MLD) (TAJ MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Siddiq Safdar for Petitioner.
- Malik, Muhammad Shafi for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
- Date of hearing: 17th January, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑-‑S.115 & O.VI, R.17‑‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9‑‑Amendment of pleadings‑‑Order allowing permission to amend‑ Order allowing permission to amend pleadings being "case decided" within meaning of S.115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, same, held, could be challenged in revision‑‑Order passed by District Judge could not be said to have been passed without jurisdiction, illegally or with material irregularity if he had fully applied his mind and had given sound reasons in support of his order.
Judgment & Decree
Malik, Muhammad Shafi for Respondents Nos. 2 and
3. Date of hearing: 17th January, 1983. This is petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, whereby Tai Muhammad petitioner wants this Court to declare the order, dated 27‑7‑1982 of the learned District Judge, Multan, to be without lawful authority.
2. The facts leading up to this writ petition in brief are that Malik Qadir Bakhah and Mst. Asghari Begum respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed a suit for permanent mandatory injunction against Taj Muhammad petitioner herein. The petitioner contested the suit and filed his written statement on 16‑9‑1980. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. for permission to amend the written statement which was allowed by the trial Court on 18‑10‑1981. Feeling aggrieved by that order, Malik Qadir Bakhsh and Mst. Asghari Begum respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein filed revision before the learned District Judge, Multan who vide his order, dated 27‑2‑1982 while accepting the revision dismissed the application for amendment of the written statement. Hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the order, dated 18‑10‑1981 allowing amendment in the written statement is not a "case decided" within the meanings of section 115, C.P.C. the learned Additional District Judge had no authority to interfere with and set aside the same. As against this, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 has defended the impugned order.
4. After hearing the learned counsel I find that it is now well‑settled that an order allowing amendment in pleadings is a "case decided" within the meanings of section 115, C.P.C., and the same can be challenged in revision under section 115, C . P. C . I further find that the learned District Judge has fully applied his mind in the matter and has given sound reasons in support of his order and as such it cannot be said that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction, illegally or with material irregularity. For what has been stated above, there being no merit in the petition the same is dismissed, leaving the parties‑to bear their own costs. H.B.T Petition dismissed.