O VI, R 17 Gilgit-Baltistan (Authorization and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Article 60 (13) and the amendment of the material language used in VI, R 17, CPC for the purpose that all such modifications May be necessary for the purpose. Determining the original question in dispute was essential in nature. Once the court decided that modification was necessary for the purpose of determining the original question, the court was required by law, not by any party on its part. A modification request made on behalf of, but also instructed to amend, the said purpose, should enjoy the full power of the amendment and should always be used freely when the plaintiff's modification is permitted If so, the defendant's right must also be taken into account, since the cause of his action is concerned, by amending it Not to change, because when the cause of action was changed, the case itself would be excluded from the initial filing of the application. There was no restriction on retaining the second application for the same purpose, without eliminating accusations on technical grounds, touching on the features and deciding the right to edit the requests; the second request should only be banned. , Once it was decided upon. O VI, R 17, Application related to the same subject cannot be filed under CPC, again, the plaintiff again proved a genuine case for amendment, which was permissible, on the basis of grounds. Editing should be allowed freely. Changes in appeal for leave to appeal for high light in amendment application
Related judgments — Supreme Appelate Court Gilgit, 2010
