2021 PLP 1766 (YLR)

ALI BAIG, J.

Through the instant writ petition filed under Article 86(2) of Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018 read with enabling articles of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners have challenged the impugned judgment/order dated 05.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit whereby the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit has allowed revision petition filed by the respondents/plaintiffs by setting aside the judgment/order dated 22.10.2018 passed by the learned trial court whereby the learned trial court had dismissed an application filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. for amendment in the plaint.

2. Relevant facts necessary for disposal of the instant writ petition are that present respondents/plaintiffs (herein after called as respondents) instituted a suit for partition of disputed property described in the heading of plaint and share from the disputed amount amounting to Rs. 183,390/- received by the present petitioner No.1 as compensation of land which was utilized/ acquired for construction of road.

3. The present petitioners being defendants in the suit contested the suit by filing their written statement.

4. The learned trial court after framing issues and recording of pro and contra evidence of parties had dismissed the suit of the present respondents.

5. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment/decree of trial court the respondents had filed civil first appeal in the court of learned District Judge Gilgit which was also dismissed by the learned first appellate court. Accordingly the respondents had filed a civil revision petition in this court which was allowed by this court vide judgment/order dated 18.8.2016 and suit of the respondents was remanded back to the learned trial court. After remand of case by this court, the present respondents filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. for certain amendments in the plaint in the trial court. The learned trial court after hearing arguments on the aforesaid application had dismissed the above said application of the respondents vide order dated 22.10.2018. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned trial court the present respondents had filed a civil revision petition in the court of the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit which was allowed by the learned lower revisional court vide the impugned judgment dated 5.4.2019, hence this writ petition.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned order/judgment is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that if the proposed amendment is allowed, the complexion of suit as well as cause of action would be changed therefore by accepting this writ petition the impugned judgment passed by the lower revisional court may be set aside.

7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners by contending that the proposed amendment in the plaint if allowed neither would change the nature of suit nor a new cause of action would be introduced, therefore the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit has rightly allowed the application of the present respondents filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. which may be maintained.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of application filed under Order VI, Rule 4, C.P.C. by the respondents in the trial court with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.

9. From perusal of contends of application filed by the present respondents under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. for certain amendment in the plaint in the trial Court, it shows that if the proposed amendments are allowed neither complexion of suit would be changed nor a new cause of action would be introduced rather the said amendment in the plaint would help to arrive at correct and just conclusion.

10. It is settled principle of law that a party is at liberty to apply for amendment of the pleadings in the trial court and even before the Supreme Court at any time. Amendment of the plaint can be allowed by appellate/revisional court and second appellate court and even by the Hon'ble Supreme Court if the same is necessary for arriving at correct decision and determination of real controversy between the parties.

11. We are of the opinion that the proposed amendment would help the trial court to arrive at just and correct decision in the matter, therefore the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit has rightly allowed the application of the present respondents filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. as the learned lower revisional court has rightly exercised jurisdiction vested in it under section 115, C.P.C. No case for interference by this court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 86(2) of Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018 is made out.

12. The upshot of the above discussion is that we find no infirmity or illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgment/order passed by the revisional court, therefore this writ petition being meritless is dismissed. File. MQ/57/GB Petition dismissed.