2010 PLP 980 (CLC)
ALTAF HUSSAIN and another — Petitioners Versus ABDUL MAJEED and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 980 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALTAF HUSSAIN and another — Petitioners Versus ABDUL MAJEED and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 980 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 980 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 980 (CLC) (ALTAF HUSSAIN and another — Petitioners Versus ABDUL MAJEED and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Anis Ali Hashmi for Petitioners.
- Naved Shehryar for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 42
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, R.1 & O. VI, R.17
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Suit for declaration and permanent injunction
Plaintiff alleged that the suit house was in his exclusive possession and the defendants had no title to the house
Initially, defendant stated in written statement that the house was sold for Rs.30,00,000 but later submitted an application for amendment in the written statement to the effect that the said house was sold for Rs. 17,00,000
False price of Rs.50,000 was mentioned on mutation in order to evade tax
Trial Court allowed the application for amendment
Plaintiff contended that amendment could not be allowed in respect of admission or denial which were part of pleadings
District Judge accepted revision and set aside order of Trial Court
Admission or denial in plaint or in written statement would not be allowed to be amended--Impugned order was legal
Constitutional petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.
This writ petition has been directed against the order dated 6-1-2010 passed by Mr. Pervez Iqbal Sipra, Additional District Judge, Hafizabad whereby the learned Additional District Judge set aside the order dated 7-9-2009 passed by the learned trial court.
2. Inter alia the petitioner contends that respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner on 10-9-2007 alleging therein the ownership of house fully described in the plaint. The petitioner further contended that respondent No.1/plaintiff has no document of title in respect of suit house while the petitioner is absolute owner and in exclusive possession of the suit house. The petitioner/defendant contested the suit and submitted his written statement and according to the averments made in the written statement, the petitioner/defendant stated that the house was sold for Rs.30,00,
000. After filing of written statement, the petitioner submitted an application for the correction/amendment of written statement and stated therein that the suit house was sold for Rs.17,00,000 and just to avoid from income tax and other expenses a fake price of Rs.50000 was given on the mutation, so, the petitioner be allowed to amend the written statement accordingly.
3. This application was resisted but the learned trial court vide order dated 7-9-2009 allowed the application and directed the petitioner/defendant to amend his written statement accordingly.
4. Aggrieved from the order of learned trial court, the respondent No.1 filed a revision petition contending therein that the order of learned trial court is against the law, null and void because amendment could not be allowed in respect of admission or denials which are part of pleadings and the learned Additional District Judge, Hafizabad vide order dated 6-1-2010 accepted the revision petition and set aside the order of learned trial court, hence this writ petition.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. In para No.8 of the plaint the value of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was affixed at Rs.30,00,000 which was admitted by the petitioner/defendant in his written statement. Similarly, in para No.2 of the written statement the petitioner has categorically admitted that consideration price was Rs.30,00,
000. He has further admitted that the suit house is situated within the municipal limits i.e. it is situated in urban area. It is settled law that admission or denial in the plaint or in written statement will not be allowed to be amended. As discussed above, the impugned order is legal, in accordance with law and unexceptional which does not require any interference by this Court. The writ petition is without any merits and is dismissed. M.U.Y./A-44/L Petition dismissed.