2018 PLP 61 (CLCN)
MUHAMMAD HAMMAD AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YOUNAS UTMAN KHEL ADVOCATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2018 PLP 61 (CLCN) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ghazanfar Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HAMMAD AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YOUNAS UTMAN KHEL ADVOCATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | ----O. VI, R. 17 & O. VII, R. 11---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act (X of 1987), Ss. 13 & 5(2)---Amendment of pleadings---Suit for possession through pre-emption---Written statement, amendment of---Scope---Contention of defendant was that no sale had been effected and only an agreement to sell had been executed---Applications for amendment in written statement and rejection of plaint were dismissed by the Trial Court---Validity---Intended amendment would change the entire complexion of written statement---Words used in the earlier written statement were to be deemed to be admission on the part of defendant and amendment whereof would not only change the entire defence but also amount to withdraw the admission made which was not permissible under the law---Defendant had moved application for amendment to bring his case in consonance with the provisions of S. 5(2) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987 and subsequently moved an application for rejection of plaint on the ground that agreement to sell was not pre-emptible transaction---Court was to determine the fate of document/transaction which was subject matter of the suit---Application for amendment was not maintainable in circumstances---No illegality, material irregularity or any jurisdictional defect had been pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court---Revision was dismissed in circumstances. [Paras. 5, 6, 7 & 8 of the judgment], Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 61 (CLCN)?
This judgment primarily cites: ----O. VI, R. 17 & O. VII, R. 11---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act (X of 1987), Ss. 13 & 5(2)---Amendment of pleadings---Suit for possession through pre-emption---Written statement, amendment of---Scope---Contention of defendant was that no sale had been effected and only an agreement to sell had been executed---Applications for amendment in written statement and rejection of plaint were dismissed by the Trial Court---Validity---Intended amendment would change the entire complexion of written statement---Words used in the earlier written statement were to be deemed to be admission on the part of defendant and amendment whereof would not only change the entire defence but also amount to withdraw the admission made which was not permissible under the law---Defendant had moved application for amendment to bring his case in consonance with the provisions of S. 5(2) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987 and subsequently moved an application for rejection of plaint on the ground that agreement to sell was not pre-emptible transaction---Court was to determine the fate of document/transaction which was subject matter of the suit---Application for amendment was not maintainable in circumstances---No illegality, material irregularity or any jurisdictional defect had been pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court---Revision was dismissed in circumstances. [Paras. 5, 6, 7 & 8 of the judgment], Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 61 (CLCN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Muhammad Ghazanfar Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 61 (CLCN) (MUHAMMAD HAMMAD AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YOUNAS UTMAN KHEL ADVOCATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.