Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

PUNJAB PROVINCE versus JAGDISH PARKASH


CPC generally does not allow the civil procedure code of O VI r 17 to specify the order VI VI specific period for which the rent was also due to II II, r 2, in the CPC plaintiff's modification. Does not stand in the way.

P L D (Rev.) 1952 Punjab 15

Before Akhter Husain, Financial Commissioner

PUNJAB PROVINCE-Petitioner

Versus

JAGDISH PARKASH-Respondent

Revision Side No. 50 of 1945-46, decided on 26th February, 1952.

Civil Procedure Code (V .of 1908)---

----

O. VI. r. 17--Omitting to mention certain periods for which rent was also due-O. II, r.2, C. P. C. does not stand in way of amendment of plaint.

The plaintiff asked for permission to amend the plaint to include certain periods for which rent was also due :

Held, that O. II, r. 2, C. P. C. is no bar to amendment of plaint.

Tika Sao v. Hari Lall A I R 1941 Pat. 276 ; Fateh Khan v. Muhammad Isa A I R 1919 Lah. 198 rel.

Syed Mazhar Husain, for the Crown.

ORDER

AKHTER HUSAIN, F. C.

-This is an application for revi sion of an order dated 20th March, 1945, passed by the Revenue Assistant, Lahore, as Assistant Collector 1st Grade, disallowing an application for permission to amend the plaint, and has been referred by the Collector Lahore vide his note dated 26th January 1946, with which the Commissioner Lahore also agrees.

2. The facts are that in a suit for recovery of rent brought by the petitioner against the respondents, the petitioner omitted to make mention of certain periods for which the rent was also due, and in an application dated 25th January, 1945, they asked for permission to amend the plaint to include those periods. The Assistant Collector disallowed the application.

3. The principal respondent Jagdish Parkash having mig rated to India, it was not possible to serve process on him in the ordinary way, and substituted service by advertisement in the Civil and Military Gazette has been effected.

4. The Collector Lahore's note dated 26th January. 1946, which gives the facts in detail, should be read as a part of this order. Apart from the ruling quoted in that order, viz.: Tika Sao and others v. Hari Lall and others A I R 1941 Pat. 276, there is also another ruling of the Lahore High Court i. e., Fateh Khan v. Muhammad Isa A I R 1919, Lah.198 which clearly lay down that Order 2, rule 2, C. P. C, is no bar to the amendment of a plaint, and I agree that it is not equitable to hold that the petitioners should be debarred from seeking entire relief at a stage when the suit has not been finally decided. I, therefore, accept the petition, set aside the order of the Assistant Collector dated the 20th of March 1945, and direct that the suit shall be amended as prayed for in the petitioner's application. The record of the case should be returned to the Collector, Lahore District, for further neces sary action in accordance with law.

A. H.

Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
property advocate from Khandabad lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.