P L D (Rev (PLP)
PUNJAB PROVINCE-Petitioner Versus JAGDISH PARKASH-Respondent
| Citation | P L D (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | PUNJAB PROVINCE-Petitioner Versus JAGDISH PARKASH-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (Rev (PLP)?
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: P L D (Rev (PLP) (PUNJAB PROVINCE-Petitioner Versus JAGDISH PARKASH-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
O. VI. r. 17--Omitting to mention certain periods for which rent was also due-O. II, r.2, C. P. C. does not stand in way of amendment of plaint.
Judgment & Decree
AKHTER HUSAIN, F. C.-This is an application for revi sion of an order dated 20th March, 1945, passed by the Revenue Assistant, Lahore, as Assistant Collector 1st Grade, disallowing an application for permission to amend the plaint, and has been referred by the Collector Lahore vide his note dated 26th January 1946, with which the Commissioner Lahore also agrees.
2. The facts are that in a suit for recovery of rent brought by the petitioner against the respondents, the petitioner omitted to make mention of certain periods for which the rent was also due, and in an application dated 25th January, 1945, they asked for permission to amend the plaint to include those periods. The Assistant Collector disallowed the application.
3. The principal respondent Jagdish Parkash having mig rated to India, it was not possible to serve process on him in the ordinary way, and substituted service by advertisement in the Civil and Military Gazette has been effected.
4. The Collector Lahore's note dated 26th January. 1946, which gives the facts in detail, should be read as a part of this order. Apart from the ruling quoted in that order, viz.: Tika Sao and others v. Hari Lall and others A I R 1941 Pat. 276, there is also another ruling of the Lahore High Court i. e., Fateh Khan v. Muhammad Isa A I R 1919, Lah.198 which clearly lay down that Order 2, rule 2, C. P. C, is no bar to the amendment of a plaint, and I agree that it is not equitable to hold that the petitioners should be debarred from seeking entire relief at a stage when the suit has not been finally decided. I, therefore, accept the petition, set aside the order of the Assistant Collector dated the 20th of March 1945, and direct that the suit shall be amended as prayed for in the petitioner's application. The record of the case should be returned to the Collector, Lahore District, for further neces sary action in accordance with law. A. H. Petition accepted.