Amendment of Pleading

2016 YLRN 64 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O. VI, R. 17Amendment of pleadingsScope

Amendment in the pleadings could be allowed if nature of suit in so far as its cause of action, complexion and character of the case did not change

Amendment should not cause embarrassment to the other party.

2013 PLD 239 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

O.VI, R. 17Amendment of pleadingsStage of proceedingsScope

Court had ample authority and discretion to allow amendment of pleadings in appropriate cases, which authority could be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the trial, and in certain cases amendments could be permitted at the stage of appeal or even in revisional jurisdiction.

2013 CLC 1810 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. VI, R. 17Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42Suit for declarationAmendment of pleadingsScopePlaintiff alleged himself to be real owner of suit property and his ex-wife to be benamidar

Defendant's initial plea raised in written statement was that she had purchased suit property from her own pocket by working at Bhatta

Production of ocular evidence by plaintiff framing of issues and fixation of case by court for production of his documentary evidence

Defendant's application for amending written statement by substituting words "working at Umar Brick Bhatta Khasht" with words of "her owned sewing school under the name and style of Rabia Sewing School"

Plaintiff's plea was that proposed amendment, if allowed, would amount to set up a new defence, which was not permissible under law

Validity

Defendant's plea in written statement was that she had purchased suit property from her own pocket

Proposed amendment regarding source of income of defendant would not change nature of her such plea

Plaintiff had yet to adduce evidence

Proposed amendment would not prejudice plaintiff's case

Such application was accepted.

2013 CLC 518 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O. VI, R. 17Amendment of pleadingsPrincipleSuit filed by proprietorship concern through its Sole ProprietorPlaintiff (proprietary concern) sought amendment in title of plaint by correcting its name and descriptionTrial Court declined said amendment but Lower Appellate Court allowed the sameValiditySuit was filed by proprietorship concern through its sole proprietor, who also verified the plaint

Application for amendment in title of plaint showed that neither plaintiff was changed therein nor any new party was added or character of suit disturbed

Misdescription in title of plaint appeared to be bona fide typographical error, which could be corrected by amendment in its title even with red link and such amendment would not involve substitution or addition of parties

No legal infirmity was found in judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court, which was well reasoned and did not warrant interference by High Court

Revision application was dismissed in circumstances.

2012 CLC 1581 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. VI, R. 17 & Schedule, Appendix "A" Serial Nos.47 and 48Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54Suit for declaration and injunctionAmendment of pleadingsPrinciples

Suit filed by plaintiffs was dismissed by Trial Court and during pendency of appeal before Lower Appellate Court plaintiff filed application to amend prayer

Lower Appellate Court dismissed application and appeal

Validity

Application for amendment of plaint so as to add only prayer for a decree of specific performance of agreement could not be allowed as plaintiffs in the suit did not assert mandatory fact of readiness and willingness as per forms of pleadings prescribed in the Schedule, Appendix "A" at serial Nos.4 and 48, C.P.C. and agreement to sell remained unproved during evidence

Proposed amendment only in prayer without bringing any change in body of plaint showed mala fide of plaintiffs so as to deprive defendants of their property which they purchased for valuable consideration, as such proposed amendment in prayer was inconsistent with contents of plaint and plaintiffs could not be allowed to substitute cause of action so as to prejudice valuable rights of defendants who were bona fide purchasers of suit property

High Court declined to interfere in judgments passed by Courts below and application under O.V1, R.17, C.P.C. was rightly dismissed

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2012 CLC 977 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. II, R. 2 & O. VI, R. 17Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12Suit for specific performance of sale agreementAmendment of pleadingsAlienation of a portion of suit land by vendor in favour of subsequent vendee

Plaintiff's application for amendment of plaint to challenge sale in favour of subsequent vendee for being illegal, without consideration and inoperative against rights of plaintiff

Dismissal of such application by Trial Court

­Validity

Subsequent vendee had been made party in suit

­Plaintiff could not be granted relief of specific of performance in suit without questioning genuineness of sale in favour of subsequent vendee

Proposed amendment sought against subsequent vendee would not change nature and complexion of suit, rather same was essential for determining real controversy between the parties

In case of refusing proposed amendment, plaintiff would be debarred by virtue of O. II, R. 2, CPC to question later on legality of sale in favour of subsequent vendee

Delay itself would not be sufficient to decline proposed amendment

Trial Court while passing order had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it

High Court set aside impugned order and accepted such application in circumstances.

2012 CLC 1403 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

O. VI, R. 17Amendment of pleadingsScopeAny amendment which was likely to change the nature of the suit, cause of action or both was not likely to be allowed

Amendment in the pleadings was not permissible where on account of an omission to raise a plea in the pleadings, valid rights had accrued to the opposite party

Court was also under a duty to watch the bona fide/mala fide of the party seeking the amendment.

2002 CLC 884 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Amendment of pleadingsPrinciples

Any amendment, that is sought which changes the nature of the pleadings cannot be allowed.

2002 CLC 551 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O. VI, R.17Amendment of pleadingsObject, scope and extent

Power to allow amendments are to be exercised liberally, but at the same time such liberal exercise of power are not to be stretched to an extent where it adversely affects the other party

Usually amendments are liberally allowed in cases where there appears to be some error or omission or misdiscription in the pleadings

Amendment which does not change the complexion of case is allowed even at the, terminal stage

Basic rule governing amendment of pleadings being that through amendment a party cannot be allowed to change the complexion of claim or to set up altogether new case or a case diabolically opposed to the one set up in earlier set of pleadings in the same proceedings

Amendment can only be made up to the extent allowed by the Court.

1969 PLD 7 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

O. V1, r. 17-Amendment of pleadings-Plea in amendment-application one which could be taken in original suit-Cannot be held to be inconsistent with original suit.