2017 PLP 1 (CLCN)

MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J.

Through this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the orders dated 20.03.2012 and 03.05.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Hafizabad and an Additional District Judge, Hafizabad, respectively, whereby an application moved by the petitioners under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C., seeking to incorporate certain amendments in the plaint in a suit for pre-emption was dismissed and a revision petition preferred thereagainst was dismissed as well.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that Muhammad Rafique, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners instituted a suit for possession through pre-emption, seeking to pre-empt a sale made through a registered sale deed No. 2923 dated 28.07.2008, by which respondents Nos. 3 and 4 herein purchased a house measuring 4 marlas. The defendants/respondents Nos. 3 and 4 contested the suit on merits. Both the parties concluded the evidence, and the case was set down for arguments, when an application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. was moved by the present petitioners for seeking certain amendments to the plaint. This was resisted by the defendants. The learned trial Court seized with the application dismissed the same vide order dated 20.03.2012. Being dissatisfied, the petitioners filed a revision petition, which was dismissed by an Additional District Judge, Hafizabad vide order dated 03.05.2012. Hence this writ petition.

3. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the learned Courts below did not appreciate the controversy in perspective; that the proposed amendment was an innocuous one and it would not have brought about a fundamental and qualitative change in the nature or complexion of the suit nor would it have changed the cause of action; that the provisions contained in Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. are to be construed liberally and the amendments which are necessary for the disposal of a lis are to be allowed. In elaboration of his arguments, he contends that the land in question was mutated in the name of Muhammad Sharif son of Boota by the Central Government vide mutation No.4725 attested on 28.05.1978. This transfer was made from Khewat No.935/1354 and Khasra No.5054. However, when this mutation was incorporated in the Register Haqdaran-e-Zamin for the year 2000-2001, Khasra number was entered as Khasra No.5004, rather than the recording of correct Khasra No.5054. On the basis of these entries, the legal heirs of Muhammad Sharif executed a registered sale deed No.2923 dated 28.07.2008 in favour of Muhammad Ismail and Akmal Hussain, who are none other than respondents Nos. 3 and

4. He concludes by making the submissions that in case of the decreeing of the suit of the petitioners, they would have to face innumerable problems in that the revenue authorities might refuse to give effect to the decrees passed by the Courts.

4. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners have been refuted by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 and

4. He argues that the petitioners are simply intent on dragging on the proceedings. According to him, the suit was instituted in the year 2008. The petitioners sat tight and when both the parties concluded the evidence, the petitioners came up with a frivolous application. He has also supported the impugned orders, particularly the reasoning given therein that the proposed amendments fell outside the domain of the Civil Courts.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and gone through the documents appended to the writ petition with their assistance.

6. From a perusal of the record, it is crystal clear that Muhammad Rafique, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners instituted a suit for possession through pre-emption to pre-empt a sale made in favour of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 herein, who had purchased a house built on land measuring 5 marlas from Mst. Ruqia Bibi and others, the legal heirs of Muhammad Sharif, who was initially transferred the suit property by the Central Government in the year 1978. It is also common ground between the parties that the recitals contained in the registered sale deed No.2923 dated 28.07.2008 by which the property in question was transferred to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 did conform to the entries recorded in the revenue record, particularly, the Register Haqdaran-e-Zamin of the revenue estate Mouza Hafizabad, Tehsil and District Hafizabad.

7. It seems that the petitioners are labouring under some misconception of law. Since they have filed a suit for possession through pre-emption. In the event of the decreeing of their suit, they would simply step into the shoes of the vendees, getting neither more nor less. It is well-established law that the right of pre-emption is a right of substitution. In case of a decree passed in favour of the petitioners, their names would stand substituted for those of the vendees/defendants/ respondents Nos. 3 and

4. Therefore, if there is any defect in the title of the defendants, it cannot be sought to be corrected in a suit for pre-emption. Furthermore, it is the headache of defendants whether they intend to get an error crept in their registered deed rectified or not. At the moment, the title to the suit property vests, in them and not in the petitioners/plaintiffs. Supposing that the petitioners have any apprehensions and misgivings about the defect in the title to the suit property, they enjoy the complete freedom to withdraw the suit instead of going on with the same. But if they are determined to press ahead with the suit, they would have to sail in the same boat as are the defendants/respondents Nos. 3 and 4.

8. I am of the considered opinion that the application moved by the petitioners under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. was misconceived. The provisions contained therein are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case. They were wrongly invoked in the first instance, and both the learned Courts below rightly dismissed the petitioner's application for bringing amendments to the plaint.

9. I am also mindful of the fact that the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction to call into question the validity of an order passed in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Ordinarily, this Court is loath to interfere with the revisional order passed by the competent Court of law unless the same is found to be patently illegal and without jurisdiction. In the instant case, I find no illegality or infirmity committed by the learned revisional Court.

9. For what has been stated above, this writ petition being without any merits is hereby dismissed.

10. Before parting with this order, it would be in order to issue a direction to the learned trial Court seized with the suit to decide the suit within the shortest possible time, preferably within a period of two months, bearing in mind that the suit has been pending adjudication since 16.09.2008. SL/R-9/L Petition dismisse