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. 328 of 1967, decided on 13th October 1967.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 26th May 1967, in Civil Revision No. 150 of 1964).
------
------S. 152‑Amendment of decree‑Declaratory suit that M was sole heir of A‑M inadvertently failing to include certain properties of A in plaint‑Held : just and fair that M should be allowed to apply for correction.
A. R. Shaukat, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khawaja Wali Muhammad, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 13th October 1967.
In this case the respondent Muhammad was successful in obtaining a decree to the effect that he was the sole heir of one Mst. Allah Rakhi in respect of the property left by her. Later on, he discovered that in the description of the property of Mst. Allah Rakhi, he had omitted reference to certain khasra numbers. then applied for amendment of the decree, to have the omitted khasra numbers included. His petition was dismissed, but he succeeded in obtaining relief in revision in the High Court. Noora, who was the contesting defendant in the suit, now seeks special leave to appeal from the order of the High Court.
The order passed by the High Court does substantial justice between the parties. The decision of the trial Court originally was that Muhammad respondent was the sole heir of Mst. Allah Rakhi in respect of all her property. If, by inadvertence, in the description of the property thus left by her, the plaintiff‑respon dent failed to mention certain properties, it was eminently just and fair that he should have b‑‑en allowed to apply for correction of the decree. The High Court has remanded the case to the trial Court, with a direction that the application for amendment may be entertained and after obtaining sufficient particulars of the property involved, from the respondent may pass orders in accordance with law. No exception in law can be taken to this order. We therefore, dismiss the petition.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer