1989 PLP 4129 (MLD)

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Orders concurrently passed by two Courts below, not suffering from illegality or jurisdictional defect, held, court not be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction by High Court. M. Iqbal for Appellant. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is directed against an order of the learned Civil Judge dated 24‑5‑1988 dismissing the petitioner's application for amendment of his plaint and the order of the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore, dated 4‑10‑1988 dismissing his revision petition. 2 Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition. briefly stated, are that the .petitioner brought a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of a plot of land situate in Aibak Bloc, New Garden Town, Lahore. The suit was initially filed against respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in the year 1971) and it was claimed therein that the petitioner had purchased the plot in dispute from Muhammad Siddiq, respondent No. 1 in 1970, but the respondent without having any title in the said plot resold it to Mst. Sikendara Rafiq, respondent No. 2. in 1977. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, petitioner carne to know that respondent No.2 had further transferred the plot to Nazir Hussain Malik, respondent No 4, who in turn sold it to respondent No.

5. It is stated by the petitioner that he impleaded the subsequent purchasers as parties in the suit and he also filed an amended plaint without obtaining permission from the Court in that behalf. The amendments unauthorisedly made were subsequently struck off by the Court. petitioner then made a formal application under Order V1, Rule 17 CPC, on 2‑4‑1988 seeking amendment of the plaint so as to incorporate certain additional facts therein. Most of the facts sought to be added pertained to the year 1978. It appears that in the meantime learned trial Court had framed the necessary, issues and the parties had almost completed their evidence. Defendants Nos.1 and 5 resisted the petitioner's application mainly on the ground that it was moved with inordinate delay and if allowed it shall change the character of the suit.

3. Learned trial Court dismissed the petitioner's application for amendment of the plaint vide order 24‑5‑1988 holding that the amendments sought to be made were mostly factual which the defendant L.DA. had already admitted in evidence. It was also observed that if the amendments in question were allowed, it would amount to re‑opening the case which stood concluded. Petitioner challenged the order of the Civil Judge in revision which, too, has been dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge by his impugned order holding that the amendments, if allowed "would change the entire nature of the suit" and would necessitate fresh issues although the case has already been concluded. Learned Addl. District Judge observed that "the learned trial Court has not acted without jurisdiction and there is no illegality committed by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order."

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the petitioner's application for amendment wherein the amendments sought to be made have been set forth in detail. As noted above, most of the facts sought to be incorporated in the plaint through these amendments relate to the year 1978. These facts could well have been proved through evidence. In fact, learned trial Court has observed in his impugned order that most of the facts have already been admitted by L.D.A. in evidence and this observation has not been controverted by, the learned counsel for' the petitioner. Be that as it may, since the suit is pending since 1979 and the parties have almost completed their evidence, learned Courts below have rightly taken the view that the amendments sought could not be allowed at this stage. I find no illegality much less any jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders warranting interference in constitutional jurisdiction. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./N‑242/L Petition dismissed.