1989 PLP 1786 (SCMR)
Mst. MUBARAK BIBI and others Petitioners Versus THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1786 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. MUBARAK BIBI and others Petitioners Versus THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1786 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1786 (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: 1989 PLP 1786 (SCMR) (Mst. MUBARAK BIBI and others Petitioners Versus THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Allah Yar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P. No.1119 of 1981).
- Nemo for Respondents (in C.P. No.1119 of 1981).
- Muhammad Akram Khawja, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.1122 of 1981).
- Nemo for Respondents (in C.P. No.1122 of 1981).
- Date of hearing: 20th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 27‑9‑1981 in W.P. No.3950 of 1980. ‑‑‑O. VI, R.17‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Amendment of plaint‑‑Trial Court directed petitioners to amend the plaint so as to correct the form of the suit‑‑Order was challenged in revision before District Court and not only the order of amendment was set aside but the suit was also dismissed‑‑High Court in writ petition declared dismissal of suit without lawful authority but setting aside the order of amendment of plaint was upheld‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether it was not a fit case for permission to amend the plaint and if so, whether the order of the Trial Court directing amendment was without lawful authority, illegal or improper and whether the Revisional Court could have dismissed the suit or should have passed proper order for remand and all other related questions, as also those raised in leave petitions.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑These petitions are by both the sides in a civil suit, regarding declaration, in respect of a land transaction. They have sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No.3950 of 1980 filed by the plaintiffs (petitioners in C.P.1119/81). The writ petitioners/plaintiffs sought more than one relief in the same suit. The trial Court directed them to amend the plaint so as to correct the form of the suit. The defendants side (petitioners in C.P.1122/81) filed a Civil Revision before the District Court challenging the order of the trial Court. It was allowed. Not only the order of amendment was set aside but the suit also was dismissed. Reliance was placed on Karim Dad v. Arif Ali and another PLD 1978 Lah.
679. The plaintiffs side (petitioners in C.P.1119) then filed a writ petition in the High Court which was partly allowed. The dismissal of the suit by the Court Revisional was declared as without lawful authority but the setting aside of the order of amendment of the plaint was upheld. Thus the case stood remanded to the trial Court for trial of the suit as originally presented. In the above circumstance both the parties having felt aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, have sought leave to appeal. After hearing both the counsel, we consider it a fit case for grant of leave, to examine; whether it was not a fit case for permission to amend the plaint. If so, whether the order of the trial Court directing the amendment was without lawful authority, illegal or improper; whether the Revisional Court could have dismissed the suit or should have made proper order for remand; and all other related questions, as also, those raised in these petitions. Security Rs.2,000 in each case. The appeals shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all necessary additional documents. They shall be heard together in the month of October, 1988. M.A.K./M‑828/S Leave granted.