1992 PLP 1221 (MLD)

This civil revision has arisen out of a suit brought by the respondents, Mst. Khalida Iqbal and others, against the petitioners, Ch. Atta Muhammad and another. In the plaint filed by the respondents they omitted to add a paragraph relating to the valuation of the suit. Subsequently, they made an application for amendment of the plaint so as to insert the said paragraph in the plaint. The Civil Judge, who was seized of the suit, allowed the desired amendment on payment of Rs.100 as costs. His order in this regard has been challenged by the petitioners by means of the civil revision in hand.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the omission of the respondents the plaint filed by them was no plaint in the eye of law and deserved to be rejected. He maintained that by allowing the amendment in question the learned Civil Judge had deprived the petitioners of a valuable right which had accrued in favour of the petitioners.

3. The law is now well settled on the point that a plaint cannot be rejected for deficiency in court‑fee without allowing the plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to make good the deficiency. In the instant case, the respondents themselves sought permission to pay proper court‑fee after amending the plaint as aforesaid. It was, therefore, not possible to straightaway reject the plaint by disallowing the amendment prayed for by the respondents. In the circumstances similar to those of the case before me, amendment had been allowed in Qadir Bukhsh v. District Judge and 3 others (1987 CLC 92(96) Lahore). Relevant observations made in the cited case read as follows:‑ "Where statement as to the valuation which is an important part of the plaint, has been omitted or the proposed valuation not given in the 19 plaint, it may be permitted to be inserted in the plaint by way of its amendment. Seemingly, it was through inadvertence that the respondents counsel had not made a mention of the valuation of the suit in the plaint. The respondents should, therefore not suffer due to the inadvertent omission on his part. It is also the policy of law that judicial matters should be decided on merits and not on the basis of technicalities. It was discretionary with the learned Civil Judge to allow or disallow the amendment in question and he does not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity in exercising his discretion in favour of the respondents. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of my revisional jurisdiction.

4. Resultantly, this civil revision fails. It is dismissed in limine. M.B.A./A-87/L Petition dismissed