1972 PLP 528 (SCMR)
SHARAF AND 8 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus SARDAR BIBI AND 10 OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1972 PLP 528 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHARAF AND 8 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus SARDAR BIBI AND 10 OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1972 PLP 528 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1972 PLP 528 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1972 PLP 528 (SCMR) (SHARAF AND 8 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus SARDAR BIBI AND 10 OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Ali Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners,
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 23rd November 1972.
- Muhammad Ali Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners,
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court, Lahore, dated the 7th February 1972, in Civil Revision No. 511 of 1966). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, r. 17--Pleadings Amendments-Code gives Court wide powers to allow amendments--High Court not shown to have exercised its discretion unreasonably in allowing amendments--Petition for special leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑Both these petitions arise out of the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court allowing the amendments sought for by the respondents. The predecessor in interest of respondents had instituted a suit for pre‑emption on the 11th November 1959, against the petitioners who are purchasers. On the 27th September 1966, the respondents applied for amendment of the plaint under Order VI. rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the substitution of some Khasra Numbers mentioned in the plaint. This application was rejected on the 13th October 1966, and the respondent filed a Civil Revision No. 511. of 1965, before the High Court. On the 8th November 1966, the respondents made another application for the amendment of the plaint under Order VI, rule 17 and prayed for adding a Khasra Number, namely, Khasra No. 264 in Khata No. 18 which had not been included in the plaint. This application too, was rejected on the 18th November 1966, and the respondents accordingly filed Civil Revision No. 612 of 1966 before the High Court. The High Court on the 7th February 1972. allowed both the petitions of the respondents and directed the amendments prayed for by the respondents to be made. The petitioners have now challenged the validity of the order of the High Court. Order VI, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Court may at any staee of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real ques tions in controversy between the parties. It is evident that the Code has given wide powers to the Court to allow amendments in the pleadings. The petitioners have failed to satisfy us that the High Court exercised its discretion in this matter unreasonably. We do not find any substance in these petitions and accord ingly dismiss both the petitions. Petition dismissed.