2006 PLP 1393 (MLD)
Mst. KAFIA BIBI and 6 others — Petitioners Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, AUQAF, LAHORE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1393 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. KAFIA BIBI and 6 others — Petitioners Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, AUQAF, LAHORE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1393 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1393 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1393 (MLD) (Mst. KAFIA BIBI and 6 others — Petitioners Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, AUQAF, LAHORE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pervaiz I. Meer, for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Ashraf Waraich for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
O.VI, R.17
West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance (XXVII of 1961), S.7
Amendment had been sought in petition filed under S.7 of West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961
Ground/plea sought to be raised by way of amendment, was neither inconsistent nor had the effect of changing the character/scope of the matter in dispute
No injustice or prejudice would have been caused to respondents' side had the amendment been allowed to be made in the petition
Amendment sought for was allowed, accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.
In the petition under section 7 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance XXVII of 1961 which is pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur, an application seeking amendment therein was filed which has been dismissed vide order, dated 10-3-2005. This is revision petition qua the same.
2. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Through the application, paragraph (i.A) was sought to be amended and added to the original petition which reads as follows:-- "That the concept of Chella is only recognized in the mythology of Hinduism and there is no concept of this institution in religion of Islam. Therefore, the respondent No.1 has got no justification to issue the said notification with regard to the land in dispute, which was not dedicated for the promotion of pious purposes." This was the ground sought to be urged to assail the validity of notification issued qua the property in dispute. Such a ground/plea sought to be raised was neither inconsistent nor had the effect' of changing the character/scope of the matter in dispute. It has repeatedly been held by the Superior Courts that in matters of amendment of pleadings, the Courts should adopt a liberal approach to the matter and permit amendment unless it has the effect of altering the scope of the suit. Reference is made to Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others v. Sarsa Khan and others (PLD 1985 SC 345) in this context. No injustice or prejudice would have been caused to the respondents side had the amendment been allowed to be made in the petition. I am, therefore, unable to sustain the order impugned. As a result, the amendment sought for will be allowed subject to costs of Rs. 1000. Since already period of three years had passed after the filing of the petition, it is observed that the Court seized of the matter will decide the main petition expeditiously. The petition is accepted accordingly, with no order as to costs. H.B.T./K-37/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.