1989 PLP 1798 (SCMR)
Mst. NAWAB JEHAN BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus Dr. IMDAD ALI Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1798 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. NAWAB JEHAN BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus Dr. IMDAD ALI Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1798 (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 1989 PLP 1798 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1798 (SCMR) (Mst. NAWAB JEHAN BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus Dr. IMDAD ALI Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sycd Ashiq Hussain Gilani, Advocate and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th May, 1989.
- S.A. Rehman, Advocate and Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 16‑10‑1988 of the Lahore High Court, in Writ Petition No.2 of 1988). ‑‑‑O.VI, R.17‑‑Amendment of pleadings‑‑Petitioner objected to the amendment of pleadings after nearly two decades‑‑Held, no doubt point raised was relevant consideration for grant or refusal of amendment, but, at the same time delay was to be put in juxtaposition to the harm caused to the cause of justice on the ground of technicality; particularly when the law had not placed any limitation in that behalf‑‑Petition dismissed. Ahsan Kausar and others v. Ahmad Zaman Khan 1986 S C M R 1796 and Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others v. Sarsa Khan and others P L D 1985 S C 345 ref. S.A. Rehman, Advocate and Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendant's side; against the grant of permission to the respondent/plaintiff's side to amend the latter `pleadings'. Learned counsel has vehemently contended that the amendment should not have been allowed after such a long time nearly two decades. It is no doubt correct that the point raised by the learned counsel is relevant consideration for grant or refusal of amendment; but, at the same time the delay is to be put in juxtaposition to the harm caused to the cause of justice on the ground of technicality particularly when the law does not place any limitation in this behalf as held in Ahsan Kausar and others v. Ahmad Zaman Khan 1986 S C M R 1790. It has also been relied upon in the impugned judgment. Learned counsel next contended that in the case of Ahsan Kausar afore noticed another judgment of this Court was relied upon namely Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others v. Sarsa Khan and others P L D 1985 S C
345. He argued that some of the features in the case of Mst. Ghulam Bibi arc distinguishable from the present case. After hearing him on this question at some length we have not been able to discover any real distinction. Finding no force in this petition leave to appeal is refused. MA.K/N‑172/S Leave refused.