1997 PLP 1750 (MLD)

1992 SCMR 1510 rel. PLD 1985 SC 345; 1986 CLC 2342 and PLD 1992 SC 180 ref Syed Sardar Shah Bukhari for Petitioners. The petitioner is one of the defendants in a civil suit pending between the parties regarding the specific performance of an agreement. The petitioner moved an application for the amendment of the written statement to take up the plea that the agreement in question was barred in view of the provisions contained in section 19 of the Punjab Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. The petition for amendment was resisted by the plaintiffs/respondents on the ground that the case was at the final stage and that the plea was being raised in order to delay its decision. In that respect, it was alleged that the suit was at the stage of final arguments, and therefore, application for amendment was moved with mala fide intention to protract the proceedings for nothing. In this regard, it was contended that the provisions contained in section 19 of the Act (ibid) were not attracted as such type of agreement could be entertained but only the alienation was barred as held in 1992 SCMR 1510.

2. Relying on the aforesaid arguments, learned trial Judge dismissed the application for the amendment moved by the petitioner/defendant. /defendant. Feeling aggrieved of the dismissal of his petition, the petitioner filed a revision petition which was also dismissed by Sheikh Liaqat Ali, learned Additional District Judge vide his order dated 18‑11‑1996.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has now contended that delay in moving the amendment petition does not constitute any good ground for disallowing the same as the pleadings can be amended at any time to settle the real controversy between the parties. Reliance was placed on PLD 1985 SC

345. It was further contended that by refusing the amendment of the written statement, the learned Courts below had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them and as such, the writ petition would be competent as held in 1986 CLC 2342 (Lahore). Lastly, it was contended that refusal to grant amendment has highly prejudiced the petitioner and, therefore, both the orders passed by the Courts below were liable to be set aside being illegal and ultra vires. Reliance was placed on PLD 1992 SC 180.

4. I have considered the foregoing facts in the light of the authorities cited at the Bar. Both the Courts below have given a concurrent finding that the amendment in the written statement was not necessary because the execution of agreement was not barred by section 19 of the Punjab Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 as would be clear from the dictum laid down in 1992 SCMR 1510. It is held in the aforesaid authority that the bar under section 19 of the Act (ibid) was against the alienation and not against the agreement which could be enforced through specific performance after the grant of proprietary rights. In such a situation, the Courts below have rightly come to conclusion that even if the amendment was allowed, it would be an exercise in futility because the suit for specific performance of the agreement in question was maintainable in the eye of law as held in the above.

5. In the light of concurrent finding of the learned Courts below and on going through the agreement in question, it becomes obvious that the alienation of the proprietary rights was to take place after the same were conferred on the vendors. It was also stated in the agreement that the same would be enforceable through the Courts by means of specific performance. In such a situation, no exception could be taken to the findings given by the Courts below in the light of the principle laid down in 1992 SCMR 1510. The writ petition being meritless is dismissed in limine. A.A./M.252/L Petition dismissed.