Lawyers Directory Listing
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.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 61‑D of 1970, decided on 23rd June 1970.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 4th March 1970, in Civil Rule No. 81 of 1968).
-----S. 153 & O. VI, r. 17 Amendment of plaint‑Amendment sought not likely to alter character of suit or take away right vested in defendant by lapse of time‑Defendant also permitted to file additional written statement and at liberty to raise question of limitation, if any‑No prejudice, held, caused to defendant‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Ahmad Sobhan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Aminul Huq, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 23rd June 1970.
‑This is an application for special leave to appeal from an order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of East Pakistan in an application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed against an order of a Munsif at Patiya allowing a prayer for amendment of a plaint in a suit pending before him.
The suit, which was filed for declaration of title and confirmation of possession with a prayer for injunction was in respect of only one plot, namely, R. S. Plot No. 2042, as mentioned in the Schedule. The plaintiff sought, after his own examination at the hearing of the suit, to amend the plaint by including in its Schedule another plot namely, R. S. Plot No. 2945 which covered C. S. Plot No. 2043 and to raise the value of the suit.
This amendment was opposed on the ground that it would set up a new case and would defeat a right which had accrued to the other side by lapse of time. The learned Munsif took the view that nothing of the kind would happen and allowed the amendment. The High Court agreed with this view and dismissed the revisional application. It is now contended on behalf of the petitioner that the amendment was wrongly allowed. We have heard the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition but are unable to agree with him that the amendment sought, would, in any way, alter the character of the suit or take away a right which had become vested in the petitioner by lapse of time.
The petitioner has been permitted to life an additional written statement. If any question of limitation does arise, he will be at liberty to raise the same in his additional written statement. No prejudice has, therefore, been caused nor has he been shut out, in any way, from raising the defenses which may be available to him in respect of the added plot.
There is no substance in this petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer