Find a Lawyer

KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION versus MUHAMMAD SHAHNAWAZ

VI and VI, R 17 le Claim mend Amendment OO VI, R 17, Approval of the exercise of discretion by the court under the CPC and the reason for proceedings in the expiration of the jurisdiction expired period since effect - the court Enjoyed The jurisdiction, under Rule 17 of the CPC, to allow the modification of an arbitrator at any stage of the proceeding where, in the opinion of the court, it was also appropriate and necessary for the final settlement of a matter between the parties. There was no reasonable basis for refusing the proposed amendment to the case because of the minor delay in applying for pla pleas with the law, however, the court was also obliged to exercise such discretion in accordance with the prescribed court rules. If the amendment was allowed, it was also necessary for the correct determination of a dispute between the parties and at any stage if it did not alter the suit form or cause a new cause of action and the dispute thereby Does not cause Party - Amendments may also be allowed to seek relief as a result of the action originally involved in the plaintiff's action, or to add additional relief to the plaintiff's superior jurisdictional courts, including the High Courts and Including the Supreme Court and may. Placing the plaintiff on another title, however, cannot be allowed to amend any of the plaintiffs when the claimant's requests for restraint were clearly shown or in fact raised a claim that was already in place in this case. Was insulted. In this case, especially when such right is recognized in favor of the other side - another Tribune in relation to the same subject

P L D 2017 Sindh 23 

Before Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Abdul Maalik Gaddi, JJ

KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION—Appellant

versus

MUHAMMAD SHAHNAWAZ and others—Respondents

High Court Appeals Nos. 178, 179 and 180 of 2016, decided on 20th September, 2016.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)—

—O. VI, R. 17—Pleadings—Amendment—Exercise of discretion by the Court under O. VI, R. 17, C.P.C.—Principles and scope—Period of limitation since the accrual of cause of action in a suit having expired—Effect—Court enjoyed jurisdiction under O. VI, R.17 of the C.P.C, to allow amendments in a plaint at any stage in the proceedings where, in the opinion of the court, the same was just and necessary for the final disposal of a case between the parties in accordance with law—Mere delay in making an application for amendment in pleadings was not a valid ground for refusing a proposed amendment in plaint, however, a court was also bound to exercise such discretion in accordance with settled judicial principles—Amendments were to be allowed if the same were necessary for accurate determination of a dispute between the parties and at any stage if the same did not change the complexion of the suit altogether or introduced a new cause of action and it did not cause prejudice to the other party—Amendments could also be allowed to seek consequential relief arising from a cause of action originally incorporated in the plaint or to add additional relief available to the plaintiff before the courts of higher jurisdiction, including the High Courts and the Supreme Court and could be allowed in order to base a plaint on a different title—Amendment to a plaint, however, cannot be allowed when mala fide on part of the plaintiff was explicitly visible in the pleadings or to raise a plea of fact which was derogatory to the plea already taken up in the plaint, particularly when such fact amounted to admission in favour of the other side—-Amendment to a plaint could not be allowed on ground of findings made by another tribunal in respect of the same subject matter—Rights accrued in favour of one party could not be allowed to be snatched away by allowing amendment in a causal manner unless it qualified the test based on the established principles and the same cannot be done when period of limitation had run, since the accrual of the actual cause of action in a suit. [p. 28] A & B

Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others v. Sarsa Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 345 ref.

Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others v. Sarsa Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 345;Mst. Khudeja v. Jehangir Khan and 37 others 1971 SCMR 395; Mst. Maryam Begum and 5 others v. Riaz Muhammad 2005 SCMR 1945; Muhammad Iqbal v. Muhammad Ramzan and 2 others PLD 1987 Azad J&K 170 and Mst. Imam Hussain v. Sher Ali Shah and others 1994 SCMR 2293 rel,

Amel Khan Kasi along with Ms. Nahl Chamdia for Appellants.

Salahuddin Ahmed for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 16th August, 2016.

famous lower court advocate from Shemier lawyer