1985 PLP 1214 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioners who are defendants in a pending pre‑emption suit seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 27‑11‑1978 whereby their civil revision petition against the amendment of the plaint allowed to the plaintiff- respondents, was dismissed. The plaintiff‑respondents sought to assert his superior right of pre‑emption in respect of a sale. The petitioners contested it. By an amendment sought and allowed the defendants‑petitioners: were permitted to raise the objection that the suit was bad for partial pre‑emption. The plaintiff‑respondents thereafter sought permission to re‑describe the property by correcting the number of certain Khasra and deleting a few others in the suit. It was allowed by the trial Court in spite of resistence by the petitioners. The defendants preferred a civil revision petition against it in the High Court which was dismissed. The High Court took the view that the trial Court had justifiably allowed the amendment. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the amendment has the effect of substituting certain Khasra numbers and omitting a few. This act of the plaintiff‑respondents has taken away the vested right which had come to accrue to the petitioners and had prejudiced them. The nature of the amendment appears from the following recital of facts:‑ "The plaintiff has moved this application for amendment of the plaint to the effect that he be allowed to correct the description of the suit land as Khata No. 29‑Min instead of Khata No. 79 and also be allowed to incorporate Khasra No. 1693/2, 1585/2, 3437 and 1516 under Khata No. 29‑min. He has also prayed that he may be allowed to delete Khasra No. 3737 and 1615 from the heading of the plaint. It has been averred by the petitioner/ plaintiff that at the time of filing the present suit and preparation of the plaint, the plaintiff obtained copy of the mutation in dispute from the Patwari; wherein because of clerical mistake Khata No. 29‑min was written on Khata No.

79. The petitioner bona fidely gave the same legislation in the plaint. The plaintiff has further deposed that he has pre‑empted land in the Khata No. 29‑min but because of over sight he has been able to incorporate Khasra Nos. 1692/2, 1585/2 and 3437 because the Khasra number were not given in the copy of the Part Patwar obtained by the petitioner from the Patwari Halka. It has been further averred that because of wrong Khasra numbers given by the Patwari to the plaintiff, he has mentioned in the plaint Khasra Nos. 3437 as 3737 and 1516 as 1615. The petitioner has proved that these rare all a bona fide mistake because of the wrong description given by the Patwari in the copy of the mutation in dispute." It is not disputed that the subject‑matter of the suit was correctly described so far as the transaction itself was concerned with its mutation number and its data of attestation. As regards the subject‑matter of the suit, the petitioners were at no stage in doubt. Such an amendment would be wholly justified in view of the law laid down by this Court in Wazir Muhammad etc. v. Abdul Aziz and another 1982 S C M R

189. We, therefore, find no merit in this petition and leave to appeal is refused. M.I. Leave refused.