1989 PLP 3386 (MLD)

K. M. Muneer v. Mirza Rashid Ahmed P L D 1964 (W.P.) Kar. 172 rel. Khawaja Sharaful Islam for Petitioner. Nazirullah Khan for Respondent. This Civil Revision application is directed against the order dated 1 11-8-1988, passed by the District Judge (East) Karachi, whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 C P C was dismissed. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above revision are that .the petitioner has filed a suit against the respondent under Order 37 Rules 1 and 2 C P C. It is alleged in the plaint that the respondent had obtained loan of Rs.1,00,000 from the petitioner and in consideration of the same executed promissory note dated 6th July, 1985. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent executed promissory note dated 6th July, 1985 in favour of the petitioner for consideration of having acknowledged Rs.1,00,000 and the same was payable to the petitioner through instalments of Rs.1,000 per month commencing from 1st January, 1986. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent failed/neglected/refused to make payment against the promissory note therefore, the entire amount has become due and payable in lump sum by the respondent to the petitioner. In these circumstances the petitioner filed suit under the summary chapter. On receipt of summons the respondent filed an application for leave to defend the suit unconditionally. The learned District Judge granted conditional leave to the respondent. The respondent being aggrieved against the conditional order filed Revision Petition being No.45/1987, which was allowed by this Court with the direction to defend the suit without furnishing security. The respondent filed the written-statement and resisted the suit. During the pendency of the case the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment of the plaint. The learned District Judge by his order dated 11-8-1988 dismissed the application on the ground that such amendment would change the nature of the suit. This question has been considered by Mr. Waheeduddin, J. (as he then was), in K. M. Muneer v. Mirza Rashid Ahmed P L D 1964 (W.P.) Kar. 172, in which he has come to the conclusion after giving cogent reasons which are fully supported by various authorities discussed by him in the said judgment that to base a claim on original consideration and allowing amendment for the purpose does not amount to substitution of distinct cause of action nor does it in the least change or alter the nature of the suit. It has been further held that amendment in such cases is nothing more than for a new ground which cannot be said to alter the character of the suit. I am in respectful agreement with this decision of Waheeduddin, J., for the reasons giving by him in his judgment and as such I am of the opinion, that the order dated 11-8-1988 of the learned District Judge (East) Karachi by which he came to the conclusion that it will alter the nature of the suit cannot be sustained and consequently, set aside the order dated 11-8-1988 and remand back the suit to the Court of District Judge (East) Karachi to dispose of the same on merits according to law. The parties are directed through their counsel to appear before the learned District Judge, Karachi East on 11-3-1989. The petitioner is directed to file amended plaint on 11-3-1989. The respondent is directed to file amended written-statement within two weeks thereafter. The respondent is allowed to take legal objection if it is available to him. The Civil Revision 293 of 1988 is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. MA.K./M-798/K Petition accepted.