1989 PLP 3569 (MLD)

O. VI. R. 17 & S. 151--Plaint, amendment of--Plaintiff sought for adding of a new relief which flowed from old set of facts and no new set of facts had been brought into the plaint as base of the newly added relief--Amendment allowed. Z.U. Ahmed for Plaintiff. Shahudul Haq for Defendants. This is an application under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C praying that the name of the defendant No. 1 be struck off from the title of the plaint on the ground that the defendant No. 1, namely The Secretary Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan was improperly joined having no right or interest in the subject-matter of the suit as disclosed and admitted in the written statement of the defendants Nos. 1 and

2. No counter-affidavit has been filed to this application. It has not been opposed either by Mr. S.M. Shahudul Haq. Hence CMA No. 3584/88 is granted.

2. This is an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 C.P.C. made by the plaintiff. The amendments proposed in paras. 1 and 2 of the application have been necessitated on account of grant of CMA No. 3584/88 and there can be no objection to the same. The second set of amendments is based on consequential reliefs of possession and damages which the plaintiff wants to add and certain amendments, which are connected with these consequential reliefs. The settled law on the point is that where no injustice is likely to cause the Court may at any stage of the suit allow the plaint to be amended by permitting an alteration in the relief claimed, as this does not ordinarily change the character or substance of the suit. In PLD 1971 S.C. 762 and a number of rulings before and after this decision it has been held that these very principles are applicable where it is sought to add new reliefs. The amendment will be allowed where the relief has been mistakenly or inadvertently left out. Mr. Shahudul Haq who appeared for defendant No. 2 submitted that by this amendment the plaintiff wanted to reconstruct his case or to set up a new case. I feel that it is not so. No doubt a plaintiff cannot be allowed to substitute by amendment of pleadings a new cause of action for the original cause of action and for this purpose the substantial nature of the claim has to be looked into. In this context cause of action means a new claim based on a new set of facts. By the present application the plaintiff has no doubt sought for adding of anew relief but this relief flows from the old set of facts and no new set of facts has been brought into the plaint as base of the newly added relief. Under these circumstances I do not find any reason to disallow the amendment. Consequently CMA No. 3585/88 is allowed. The amended plaint already filed by the plaintiff is taken on record. Adjourned to a date in office. This amended written statement, if any may be filed within two weeks. . MA.K./W-43/K Amendment allowed.