1993 PLP 555 (CLC)

(e) Interpretation of statutes

‑‑‑‑Procedural provisions have to be interpreted to secure and serve ultimate ends of justice and must be subordinated to the object of dispensation of justice for securing which, the entire judicial system has been involved and is functioning. (f) Discretion‑-- ‑‑‑‑ Discretion vesting in the Court, to secure ends of justice, has to be liberally construed without trampling the legitimate interests of the other side. Fazal Miran for Petitioner. Respondent No.l (absent). Ghulam Haider AI‑Ghazali for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 21st December, 1992. Muhammad Ashraf Sheikh, as sole proprietor of M/s. United Trading Establishment, Gardee Trust Building, Lahore, had, on 2‑4‑1977, filed a suit for rendition of accounts against M/s. Aeroflot Airlines and Pakistan International Air Lines, stating that certain consignment of goods (600 dozens of children sleeveless slips), booked at Lahore, on 1‑6‑1976, for carriage to Tripoli, Libya, did not reach the destination. Defendant No.l having provided air carrier through defendant No.2 did not furnish any satisfactory explanation or information about the missing consignment. For acts of omission and commission on the part of the defendants, the plaintiff pleaded to have suffered losses, and the defendants were bound to compensate him adequately, it was so urged by the plaintiff. The defendants were also under a legal obligation to account for the goods and the value thereof. This required rendition of accounts on the part of the defendants, according to the plaintiff.

2. The suit was contested by both the defendants. Mr. Riaz Ahmad Chaudhary, Civil Judge, Lahore, on 20‑5‑1979, rejected the plaint, holding that it did not disclose a cause of action, and appeal was filed by the plaintiff on 6‑2‑1980, for having the aforesaid order set aside. Alongwith the appeal, which ;vas entrusted on 6‑2‑1980 to Rao Muhammad Hayat, Additional District Judge, Lahore, the plaintiff submitted an application under Order Vi, rule 17 read with section 151, C.P.C., for amendment of the plaint, but the same was rejected on 30‑3‑1981. The present revision petition has been preferred against that order.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents who had opposed this application in the Courts below, has put up resistance against the revision petition as well urging that it is a mala fide move on the part of the plaintiff, inasmuch as without payment of proper court‑fee for his claim, the plaintiff had instituted the suit under a different garb and not in proper form, and it was also pointed out that the move was a belated one, as throughout the proceedings of the suit before the Civil Judge, no such prayer had been made, and for the first time request for amendment of the plaint was made by the plaintiff to the first appellate Court and that too with no genuine object and with no sound basis. It was also contended that the question of limitation would be involved and plaintiffs claim for recovery of money could, by no standard, be treated to be within time.

4. I am amused to hear the learned counsel for the respondents pointing out that the amendment proposed to be made does not seek to correct any typographical error or a clerical mistake. It is well known that provisions of Order V1, rule 17, C.P.C. do not cover only errors of such minor nature, and changes involving major shift in the stand of a party or embracing far‑reaching implications may even be allowed, in the larger interests of justice, and keeping. in mind, of course, interests and rights of the other party. I would, however, agree with the learned counsel that the plaintiff, in having couched his prayer, as one for rendition of accounts did not exercise, at the relevant time, proper care, and his counsel did not frame fundamental plea and consequential prayer in the manner as was dictated by the facts and circumstances of the case. In the mind of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, at that time, could 'also exist a lurking desire to escape heavy liability in terms of payment of huge amount of court‑fee. But even in a bona fide manner, the plaintiff, or his counsel, might have been induced to believe that since two Air Lines were involved and his claim required an extensive probe, the situation would warrant settlement of his claim in the manner of rendition of accounts.

5. The fact remains that amendment in pleadings may be allowed at any stage of the proceedings to secure and serve ultimate ends of justice. Procedural provisions have to be invoked and interpreted with the aforesaid ends in view and must be subordinated to the object of dispensation of justice for securing which the entire judicial system has beer involved and is functioning. Discretion that vests in the Court, in the sphere in question, has to be liberally exercised without, of course trampling the legitimate interests of the other side. In para. 7 of the plaint the plaintiff had set out details of his claim confining his demand to a well‑defined and mathematically worked out amount (Rs.10,25,500). Initially, as already said, suit for recovery of that specific amount should have been filed. When such realisation dawned upon the plaintiff, at the time of preferring first appeal, he hastened to make a prayer that he be permitted to convert his claim for rendition of accounts into one for recovery of an ascertained amount.

6. I do not think that the learned Additional District Judge had given sound reasons in rejecting the prayer and his approach to the issue was logically and legally sane. Claim for recovery of money cannot be considered to have been made at the juncture when the amendment is allowed it will take effect from the date of institution of the suit. Similarly the proposed amendment will not drastically or prohibitively alter the character or completion of the claim, which will substantially remain the same, as has originally been pleaded by the plaintiff. It would be a fallacy to urge that the intended alteration in the plaintiff's prayer will give rise to multiplicity of litigation; it would indeed be an effort to curtail and confine the same to one suit; and if contrary course is adopted, it will lead to complication of the matter, as also to dichotomy or duplicity of the basic plea and substantial prayer. For furthering the ends of justice the amendment asked for ought to have been allowed.

7. The impugned order dated 30‑3‑1981, in consequence of above discussion, is set aside, and the revision petition is accepted, although with no order as to costs. The amended plaint shall be filed in the trial Court. The order rejecting the plaint passed by the Civil Judge is not before me, nor has the record of the case been requisitioned. Since amendment of the plaint will E require re‑appraisal of the issue and renewed resolution of the controversy between the parties, the matter shall be decided afresh on merits and for the purpose the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, will keep the case with him or will entrust it to any other experienced Civil Judge. Parties shall appear before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, on 15‑1‑1993. AA./M‑781/L Case remanded.