1987 PLP 1024 (CLC)
REHMAT ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM NABI ‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1024 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | REHMAT ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM NABI ‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1024 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1024 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1024 (CLC) (REHMAT ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM NABI ‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob Kung for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑ Art. 199‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
0. IV, R.17‑‑Amendment of written statement‑‑ Concurrent judgments‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Two Courts below applying conscious mind to facts and circumstances of case and after giving cogent reasons in support of their decisions dismissed application of defendant for amendment of written statement‑‑ Courts below without flouting relevant provisions of law decided matter in accordance with law laid down by superior Courts‑‑Concurrent judgments of two Courts below not suffering from legal infirmity or jurisdictional defects, held, could not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob Kung for Petitioner. Through this Constitutional petition, Rehmat Ali, wants this Court to declare orders, dated 3‑5‑1986 of learned Civil Judge, Lodhran and, dated 28‑9‑1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The facts leading up to this petition briefly are that Ghulam Nabi, respondent, filed suit for possession by pre‑emption against Rehmat Ali petitioner. The suit was resisted. Issues were framed and the evidence produced by the plaintiff was recorded when the petitioner moved application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. for permission to amend the written statement. The learned trial Court dismissed the application on 3‑5‑1986. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed revision which was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge, Multan who vide order, dated 28‑9‑1986, dismissed the same Hence this petition,
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the reasons given by the learned Courts below that the plea raised by the petitioner/ def end ant was afterthought is factually wrong inasmuch as the petitioner had also produced receipts to prove the payment of District Council fee of Rs.3,750 and stamps valuing Rs.2,000.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the learned trial Court had a discretion to permit amendment of the written statement; that the two Courts below have applied conscious mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and have given reason in support of their decisions; that the A Court below have not flouted the relevant provisions of law and have decided the matter in accordance with the law laid down by the superior Courts. I do not see any legal infirmity in the impugned orders which do not suffer from jurisdictional defect. The submissions made by the 1025 learned counsel do not make out a case for interference with the impugned orders in exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
5. For what has been said above, there being no merit, the petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T. /R‑3/L Constitutional petition dismissed.