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.
1971 S C M R 507
Present: Muhammad Yabub Ali, M. R. Khan and Waheeduddin Ahmed, JJ
Ch. AHMAD DIN AND 2 OTHERS‑Petitioners
versus
THE AUSTRALASIA BANK LTD., BHALWAL‑Respondent
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 64 of 1971, decided on 28th June 1971.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, in Civil Revision No. 169 of 1971, dated the 1st March 1971).
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
S. 115 & O. VI, r. 17 --Words "case which has been decided"‑Order allowing amendment of plaint‑Not a "case decided"‑High Court not competent to entertain revision application against such order.
A. R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Kh. Wali Muhammad, A. O. R. for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 28th June 1971.
WAHEEDUDDIN AHMED, J.‑--
The respondent‑Bank has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 11,715.96 against the petitioners in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sargodha on the ground that the petitioners were granted loan on the hypothecation of certain goods by the respondent‑Bank and they have failed to pay the balance of the amount. This allegation was made in para. 4 of the plaint. After the written statement was filed, the respondent‑Bank filed an amendment application in order to explain the circumstances under which the goods were hypothecated with the petitioners and the manner in which the goods were dealt with. The learned Civil Judge by order dated the 5th February 1971, allowed the respondent‑Bank to amend the plaint on payment of Rs. 50 as costs. The petitioners challenged this order in Civil Revision No. 169 of 1971 and a learned Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated the 1st March 1971, dismissed it. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said order.
In support of the petition, Mr. A. R. Shaukat, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that a specific stand was taken by the respondent‑Bank in the plaint that the goods were in their possession and by the amendment they wanted to shift their stand. According to the learned counsel this is not permissible under the law. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. We have gone through the amendment allowed by the Civil Judge and are satisfied that the character of the suit has not been changed by it. Moreover, it was not a case decided and, therefore, the High Court was not competent to entertain the revision application. The petition is dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer