1980 PLP 961 (SCMR)
DIVISION, LAHORE ETC.-Petitioners Versus Mian COMBINED TRADERS, LAHORE Respondent
| Citation | 1980 PLP 961 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ----O. VI, r. 17-Pleadings--Amendment of--Question whether amend ment of pleadings be permitted-Held, within discretion of trial Court- Exercise of such discretion cannot be interfered with unless same be perverse--Pleadings. |
| Bench Members | Dorab Patel and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | DIVISION, LAHORE ETC.-Petitioners Versus Mian COMBINED TRADERS, LAHORE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 961 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 961 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ----O. VI, r. 17-Pleadings--Amendment of--Question whether amend ment of pleadings be permitted-Held, within discretion of trial Court- Exercise of such discretion cannot be interfered with unless same be perverse--Pleadings. bench comprising: Dorab Patel and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 961 (SCMR) (DIVISION, LAHORE ETC.-Petitioners Versus Mian COMBINED TRADERS, LAHORE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iftikharul Haq Khan, Advocate and Ijaz Ali Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent
- Date of hearing: 17th March 1980.
- Iftikharul Haq Khan, Advocate and Ijaz Ali Sheikh, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 5th November 1974 in Civil Revision No. 687 of 1974).
O. VI, r. 17-Pleadings--Amendment of--Question whether amend ment of pleadings be permitted-Held, within discretion of trial Court- Exercise of such discretion cannot be interfered with unless same be perverse--[Pleadings].
Judgment & Decree
DORAB PATEL, J.‑‑The respondent had obtained an award against the petitioners. He, therefore, filed an application under the Arbitration Act to make the award a rule of the Court and the respondents had to file their objections within the statutory period of limitation. They did so, but there after they filed an application to amend the objections filed by them. This application was rejected by the trial Court, therefore, the respondents challeng ed the dismissal of their amendment application in a revision in the Lahore High Court, but as the revision was dismissed they have filed this petition for leave. The question whether the respondents could be permitted to amend their pleadings was within the discretion of the trial Court and as the High Court on cogent grounds saw no reason to interfere with the exercise of the trial Court's discretion against the respondents, ‑no case whatever has been made out for the grant of special leave, because this Court does not grant special leave against discretionary orders unless discretion has been exercised perversely. There is no merit in this petition, which is dismissed. Petition dismissed.