1989 PLP 395, (CLC)

3. In support of the above applications Mr. Nasim A. Farooqui, learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently urged that if the amendments brought about by the Ordinance in the Customs Act, 1969, are to be taken into consideration for the disposal of the above petitions, the petitioners are entitled to amend the petitions and to impugned the Ordinance and the amendments made by it in the Customs Act, 1969. In furtherance of his above submissions, he has referred to the following cases:‑. (i) Messis Hiralal Chhanganlal and others v. State of Rajasthan and others A I R 1968 Rajasthan 188, in which a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court inter alia held that the question about the validity of a rule is to be raised by amending writ petition and not through an affidavit. (ii) Ahsan Kausar and others v. Ahmed Zaman Khan 1986 SGMR 1799. In the above case, the facts were that the trial Court allowed the amendment in the plaint for adding the relief for possession, which order was maintained by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench. Against which an appeal filed in the Supreme Court was dismissed. While dismissing the appeal, it was observed by the Supreme Court that the cause of action and facts constituting the same were pleaded with sufficient particulars in plaint and no new case was being set up, and therefore, introducing an additional prayer in the suit without changing the substance and character of cause of action set out in the plaint cannot be refused at any stage. It was also observed that the rules of procedure are intended to secure proper administration of justice which demands that full power of amendment must be enjoyed by Court in order to achieve object of complete adjudication of disputes. (iii) Mat. Amine Begum and others v. Mehar Ghulam Dastgir PLD 1978 S C 220, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court while declining a petition for leave against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, observed that a Civil Court‑has inherent powers in order to avoid multiplicity ,of proceedings, to shorten litigation, and to do complete justice to the parties and to mould relief according to altered circumstances in larger interest of justice. (iv) Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others v. Sarsa Khan and others P L D 1985 S C

345. In the above case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, whereby an application for amendment of the plaintiff filed by the appellants for claiming specific performance of the contract of sale in place of declaration of ownership of land was declined. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the above amendment and remanded the case.and while remanding the case it was inter alia observed that the rules of. procedure are meant to advance justice and to preserve rights of litigants and they are not meant to entrap them into blind corner as to frustrate the purpose of law and justice.

4. It would suffice to observe that the facts of the above cases are distinguishable from the present cases. In the above two Supreme Court cases namely, Ahsan Kausar and others v. Ahmad Zaman Khan and Mst. Ghulam. Bibi and others v. Sarsa Khan and others the controversy related to the suit property, the facts constituting the cause of action for further relief of possession and for specific performance. remained the same, only the above additional reliefs were sought through the amendments, whereas in the above case of Supreme Court namely, Mst. Amine Begum and others v. Mehar Ghulam Dastgir, the well‑established principle that the Court can mould relief according to the altered circumstances in the larger interest of justice has been reiterated. The Rajasthan's case has also no application as it lays down that for impugning a rule amendment in the petition is to be made and that the same cannot be sought through an affidavit.

5. We may add that it is a well‑settled principle of law that the Court will allow an amendment in a pleading liberally so long as it does not change the substance and complexion of a suit. Even, if we were to treat the above petitions as suits for the purpose .of the amendment, in our view, the petitioners through the above amendment applications want to introduce a new cause of action on new grounds. The controversy .in the present petitions is as to whether the petitioners are liable to pay customs duty etc. at the rates obtaining at the time of the issuance of the import licences and the opening of letter of credit or at the rates prevalent at the time of filing of bill of entries, whereas the petitioners through the above amendment application want to amend the petitions in order to impugn the Ordinance inter alia on the ground of its‑ being violative of the Constitution.

6. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the above alleged subsequent cause of action cannot be conveniently dealt within the controversy which was raised in the above petitions. The amendments will change the complexion and the scope of controversy in the petitions.

7. We, therefore, dismiss the above applications. M.Y.H./Z‑68/K. Applications dismissed