2000 PLP 1508 (YLR)
KHUSHI MUHAMMAD‑ Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1508 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | KHUSHI MUHAMMAD‑ Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1508 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 1508 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1508 (YLR) (KHUSHI MUHAMMAD‑ Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saif‑ul‑Haq Ziay for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑O. VI, R.17‑‑‑Amendment of written statement‑‑‑Defendant wanted to add explanations to the legal objections taken by him in the written reply‑‑‑Trial Court allowed such amendment on the ground that the same would not change the nature of the suit‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Amendment had been allowed properly and in a way the defendant had done a favour to the plaintiff by forewarning him of his detailed plea in defence. Muhammad lqbal v. Muhammad Ramzan and others PLD 1987 Azad J&K 170; Ijaz Mahmood and others v. Manzoor Hussain and others 1988 SCMR 34 and m.v. Kaptan Yousuf Kalkavan v. Semco Salvage . PTD Ltd. 1992 CLC 143 distinguished.
Judgment & Decree
"4 The petitioner/defendant wants to explain these issues through the proposed amendments which are necessary to resolve, the matter in controversy between the parties. The nature of the suit will not be changed by the proposed amendments which can be made at any stage. The respondent/plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the proposed amendment as he will have the right of rebuttal"
4. Now coming to the cases relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner: (i) Muhammad Iqbal (supra): This is not relevant because in this case the plaintiff sought the amendment and the purpose was to include property left out at the time of institution; (ii) m.v. Kaptan Yousuf Kalkavan (supra): The judgment of this case, if studied closely, would go against the petitioner. The learned Judge has tabulated the rules governing the acceptance or rejection of application for amendment; and (iii) Ijaz Mahmood and others (supra): In this case petitioner/defendant moved an application for amendment of the written statement in order to take up plea of adverse possession when the evidence of the parties had been recorded and case was fixed for arguments. No explanation was offered for not taking the said plea at the initial stage of the trial. This judgment is again not relevant because the present suit is still at initial stages and no new plea has been taken by the defendant. The amendment has been allowed properly and in a way defendant has done a favour to the petitioner by fore‑warning him of his detailed plea in the defence.
5. The upshot of this discussion is that there is no merit in the revision petition. The same is dismissed in limine. Q.M.H./M.A.K./K‑10/L Revision dismissed,