2010 PLP 537 (YLR)
DAMSAZ KHAN — Petitioner Versus TEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION (M.C.), D.I. KHAN through Tehsil Nazim and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 537 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Attaullah Khan, J |
| Parties | DAMSAZ KHAN — Petitioner Versus TEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION (M.C.), D.I. KHAN through Tehsil Nazim and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 537 (YLR)?
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 537 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Attaullah Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 537 (YLR) (DAMSAZ KHAN — Petitioner Versus TEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION (M.C.), D.I. KHAN through Tehsil Nazim and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fazlur Rehman Baloch for Petitioner.
- Malik Muhammad Asad for Respondent No.1.
- Salahuddin Gandapur for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
S.42
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, R.17
Amendment of plaint, application for
Suit for declaration had been dismissed
Plaintiff filed application for amendment of the plaint and record had shown that it had been simply placed on file and no reply had come from the defendants
Amendment sought by the plaintiff was his right and it was the discretion of the court to which it was submitted either to accept it or disallow
Disposal of said application was mandatory
Neither reply had been submitted by the defendants nor defendants had been asked to the same and the Appellate Court remained silent about the said application
Amendment sought by the plaintiff went to the root of the case and its disposal was necessary
In view of the non-disposal of the application for amendment of plaint, impugned judgment of the Appellate Court had become nullity in the eye of law
Judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and case was remanded with the direction to dispose of application filed by the plaintiff for amendment in accordance with law and thereafter dispose the appeal.
Judgment & Decree
ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.--Through the revision petition in hand the petitioner had impugned the judgment and decree dated 2-5-2009 passed by Additional District Judge-VI, D.I. Khan vide which he dismissed the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21-9-2007 passed by Civil Judge-III, D.I. Khan.
2. The brief facts are that a suit for declaration was filed by the petitioner against the respondents seeking a declaration on the ground mentioned in the plaint.
3. Both the respondents contested the suit by filing their written statement. The pleadings of the parties resulted into five issues. After recording evidence and hearing arguments, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the petitioner on 21-9-2007. The said judgment was assailed in appeal before the appellate Court. The appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 2-5-2009.
4. Now the petitioner has challenged the latest judgment in this Court through petition under section 115 C.P.C.
5. Inter alia, counsel for the petitioner argued that an application was submitted before the appellate Court on 3-12-2008 for amendment in the plaint. According to the learned counsel, the Court did not call for reply nor it has been decided. In reply, no convincing arguments have been addressed by the opposite counsel.
6. Arguments heard and record on file perused in the light of which my discussion is as under:-
7. Attested copy of the said application is on file as Annexure-F. In this application it has been prayed that certain amendment may be allowed in the plaint. The record shows that it has been simply placed on file. No reply has come from the respondents. The amendment sought by the petitioner is his right. It is discretion of the Court to which it is submitted either to accept it or disallow. The disposal is mandatory. As stated above, neither reply has been submitted by the respondents nor the respondents have been asked for the same. The appellate Court remained silent about the said application. The amendment sought by the petitioner goes to the root of the case and its disposal is necessary.
8. In view of the non-disposal of the above mentioned application the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge has become nullity in the eye of law. On this point accept the revision petition, set-aside the judgment and decree dated 2-5-2009 passed by Additional District Judge-VI, D.I. Khan and remand the case back to that Court with the directions to dispose of the application submitted by the petitioner for amendment in accordance with law and thereafter dispose of the appeal. The parties are directed to appear before the appellate Court on 21-12-2009. H.B.T./221/P Case remanded.