2015 PLP 322 (GBLR)
HAFIZ-UR-REHMAN and another — Petitioners Versus ZIA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2015 PLP 322 (GBLR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Appellate Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HAFIZ-UR-REHMAN and another — Petitioners Versus ZIA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2015 PLP 322 (GBLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2015 PLP 322 (GBLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Appellate Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2015 PLP 322 (GBLR) (HAFIZ-UR-REHMAN and another — Petitioners Versus ZIA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Shafqat Wali, Senior Advocate for Petitioners.
- Haji Jamal Khan, Advocate-on-Record.
- 5. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to establish that the amendment sought in the application may create a new cause of action in the suit or it may change nature of the suit altogether. Hence the points raised by the learned counsel for petitioner are having devoid of substance, therefore, leave to appeal is refused accordingly. File.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 8 & 42
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.10(2) & O.VI, R. 17
Suit for declaration and possession
Impleading of party and amendment of pleadings
Respondents in the case filed suit for declaration and possession before the Civil Judge
Respondents, during pendency of suit, filed application under O.I, R.10(2) & O.VI, R.17, C.P.C., for amendment of pleadings and impleading of party; which application having been allowed, petitioners filed revision petition against said order, which was dismissed
Petitioners availed writ jurisdiction of Chief Court against the concurrent findings of Civil Judge and Additional District Judge
Chief Court dismissed writ petition
Held, concurrent findings of courts below need not to be interfered as all the impugned orders were in accordance with law, having no material irregularity
Liberal view was to be taken to allow applications under O.VI, R.17 and O.I, R.10(2), C.P.C.; unless said amendments might change the nature of the suits or would create new cause of action
Petitioners had failed to establish that amendment sought, could create a new cause of action in the suit; or it could change nature of the suit altogether
Points raised by the petitioners being devoid of substance, leave to appeal was refused accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
MUZAFFAR ALI, J.
This petition for leave to appeal has been directed against the order dated 27-08-2013, passed by the learned Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan in Writ Petition No.36/2011, whereby the learned Division Bench of the learned Chief Court has dismissed the writ petition and maintained the impugned order of Additional District Judge Gilgit dated 15-04-2011, in Revision Petition No.37/2010, and order dated 13-05-2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge Gilgit, in Suit No.191/2006.
2. The facts revealed from the petition for leave to appeal are as such that the present respondents have filed a declaratory suit-cum-possession before the Civil Judge first Class Gilgit, and during the pendency of the same the present respondents submitted an application under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. for amendment and impleading of party.
3. The present petitioners resisted the application but the learned trial Judge allowed the application. The present petitioners being dis-satisfied with the order passed by the learned trial court filed a Revision petition before the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit, but the Revision petition also got the same fate. Then the petitioners availed writ jurisdiction of the learned Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan, against the concurrent findings passed by the learned Civil Judge First Class Gilgit, and learned Additional District Judge Gilgit, and filed to persuade the learned Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan, to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. We have gone through the concurrent findings of lower courts which in our opinion need not to be interfered, as all the impugned orders are in accordance with law, having no material irregularity. The Courts have always taken a liberal view to allow applications under Order VI, Rule 17 and Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. unless the same amendments sought, might change the nature of the suits or create new cause of action if allowed.
5. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to establish that the amendment sought in the application may create a new cause of action in the suit or it may change nature of the suit altogether. Hence the points raised by the learned counsel for petitioner are having devoid of substance, therefore, leave to appeal is refused accordingly. File. HBT/184/GB Leave refused.