2010 PLP 583 (CLC)
ABDUR RASHEED — Petitioner Versus DUBEER AHMED and 12 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 583 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUR RASHEED — Petitioner Versus DUBEER AHMED and 12 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 583 (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 583 (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 583 (CLC) (ABDUR RASHEED — Petitioner Versus DUBEER AHMED and 12 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arif Mehmood Rana for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 12
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, R.17
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Application for amendment in the plaint
When evidence was being recorded in the case, the plaintiff moved an application under O. VI, R.17, C.P.C. seeking amendment in the plaint so as to assert that his claim was based on a written agreement instead of oral agreement of sale
Trial Court dismissed application filed by the plaintiff, revision also having been dismissed by the Appellate Court, plaintiff filed constitutional petition
Suit was brought by the plaintiff on the basis of alleged oral agreement of sale and when the suit was at the stage of recording evidence and one witness had also been recorded on his behalf, he wanted to introduce a fact that his claim was based on a written agreement of sale
Plaintiff had never asserted that his claim was based on a written agreement and that the original was misplaced somewhere as contended by the plaintiff-Plaintiff's version in the application for amendment was that he be allowed to base his claim on written agreement of sale
Such a volte face could not be allowed to be pleaded
Earlier when his claim was based on an oral agreement of sale, the same was duly verified on oath
Litigant alleging contradictory things on material question, could not be heard
Both the courts below rejected his application for amendment; their orders were sound and did not call for interference in constitutional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.
In a suit for specific performance brought by the petitioner on 12-7-2004, evidence was being recorded when he moved an application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. seeking amendment in the plaint so as to assert that his claim was based on a written agreement instead of oral agreement of sale. The learned Civil Judge by order dated 1-1-2009 dismissed the application. Revision petition filed thereagainst was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 2-2-2009.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the amendment sought for neither changed the character of the suit nor did it have any bearing on the subject-matter and that even at the final stage, an amendment in the pleadings could be allowed.
3. There is absolutely no cavil with the proposition tried to be canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the fact remains, that the suit was brought by the petitioner on the basis of alleged oral agreement of sale and now when the suit was at the stage of recording evidence and one witness has also been recorded on his behalf, he wanted to introduce a fact that his claim was based on a written agreement of sale. According to him, this agreement was already misplaced somewhere and was located afterwards. It may be noted that it was never his case that his claim was based on a written agreement and that the original was misplaced somewhere. His version in the application for amendment was that he be allowed to base his claim on the written agreement of sale. Such a volte face cannot be allowed to be pleaded. Earlier, when his claim was based on an oral agreement of sale, the same was duly verified on oath. Now he was taking a shift. A litigant alleging contradictory things on material questions, they say, cannot be heard. Both the Courts below rejected his application for amendment. Their orders were sound and did not call for interference in writ jurisdiction. Dismissed in limine. H.B.T./A-156/L Petition dismissed.