1992 PLP 1215 (MLD)
REHMAT ALI — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE and others. — Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1215 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | REHMAT ALI — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE and others. — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1215 (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 1992 PLP 1215 (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: 1992 PLP 1215 (MLD) (REHMAT ALI — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE and others. — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Rashid for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
O.VI, R.17
Application for amendment of written statement
Such application related to the manner in which the evidence was recorded in the cases which aspect of the matter had nothing to do with the pleadings of the parties
Held, if the applicant had any objection in respect of the manner in which the evidence was recorded, he could agitate the point in his arguments instead of amending the written statement
Disallowance of amendment in written statement was justified in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
This writ petition has arisen out of a pre-emption suit. Petitioner is a defendant in that suit. The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge, Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura whereupon appeal was taken before the District Judge, Sheikhupura. The learned District Judge remanded the suit to the Trial Court for fresh decision. After the remand of the suit, the petitioner made an application for amendment of written statement, which was not allowed. Order passed in this regard was challenged by the petitioner by means of an appeal but without success. He has, therefore, invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
2. I have gone through the application for amendment of the written statement. It relates to the manner in which the evidence was recorded in the case. This aspect of the matter has nothing to do with the pleadings. of the parties. If the petitioner has any objection in respect of the manner in which the evidence was recorded, he should raise argument in this behalf instead of amending the written statement. 1, therefore, find no fault with the orders of the two Courts below by which they declined to allow the desired amendment.
3. Resultantly, this writ petition fails. It is dismissed in limine. M.BA./R-25/L Petition dismissed.