Amendment in written statement

2024 MLD 698 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

O.VI, R.17Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Amendment in written statementPrinciplesDefendant/petitioner sought amendment in written statement which was declined by Trial CourtValidity

Record showed that after delay of three years of filing the suit, framing of issues and recording/closing of evidence of respondents, application under O. VI, R. 17, C.P.C., with regard to the amendment of written statement was filed

Allegedly, facts about proposed amendment were not incorporated/mentioned in the written statement inadvertently

No logic that facts which were in knowledge of parties if not mentioned at the relevant time, could be allowed to be mentioned at any time during the course of trial, as it would cause inordinate delay in deciding the matter

If the parties were allowed to make amendments in pleadings after many years of filing the suits/petitions etc. without any lawful/plausible justification, then the cases could not be decided and would be delayed for an indefinite period

Proposed amendment would also change the nature of the defense taken by the petitioner and would amount to making improvements which was not permissible under the law

Impugned order was interlocutory order which had not been made appealable under S. 104 read with Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2020

Section 115, C.P.C., stands substituted in a manner that an order which is not appealable is no more revisable

Said statutory amendment did not allow revision against a non-appealable interlocutory order

Unless patent legal defect and material irregularity is pointed out, the orders could not ordinarily be interfered by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution

Constitution petition was not maintainable and the same was dismissed in limine being meritless.

2016 CLC 1309 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. VI, R.17Amendment in written statementScope

Trial Court decreed the suit against which appeal was filed wherein an application for amendment in the written statement was moved by the defendants which was dismissed by the Appellate Court

Validity

Proposed amendment had already been mentioned in the written statement but in evidence same had not been pressed

After framing of issues defendants could have filed an application for recasting of issues in accordance with their pleadings

Proposed amendment should only be allowed in such manner and on such terms as might be just and necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties

Defendants had filed application for amendment to introduce a new plea which did not relate to the controversy raised in the plaint as well as in the written statement

Proposed amendment was not necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties

Application for amendment might be filed at any stage in the interest of justice but while allowing such application the consideration of the court should be that no such amendment should be allowed which was aimed at changing the complexion of the case altogether or would introduce a new case based on new cause of action

No jurisdictional error or material irregularity had been committed by the Appellate Court while passing the impugned order

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2010 PLD 12 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

O. VI, R. 17Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42Suit for declarationAmendment in written statementScope

Defendants appeared before the court and submitted their written statement and issues were framed by the Court in the light of pleadings of the parties

Later on, the defendants filed application for amendment in written statement, wherein it was pleaded that their counsel filed written statement without their consultation and detailed facts could not be incorporated in the written statement

Application for amendment by the defendants had been rejected by the Trial Court

Validity

Courts were liberal and lenient while allowing the amendment of pleadings, subject to certain conditions

Amendment should not be allowed where amendment sought was to alter the nature of defence or wholly displace written statement originally filed

Amendment in written statement, like plaint could not be allowed so as to introduce an inconsistent defence which would change nature of defence originally taken in earlier written statement

Amendment sought for in the present case, was for the withdrawal of admission made in earlier written statement

Such an amendment could not be allowed

Admission made in written statement had different character and legal significance than admission made generally

Admission made in written statement could not be allowed to be withdrawn through amendment

Application for amendment in written statement, had revealed that defendants had sought amendment in all paragraphs of written statement; introducing inconsistent defence which would change nature of defence originally taken by the defendants in their earlier written statement

Such-like amendment could not be allowed under O. VI, R.17, C.P.C.-Findings of the Trial Court which were in accordance with law and supported by sound reasons, could not be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction of High Court.