AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR COUNCIL THROUGH SECRETARY versus PAIDAR BUILDERS (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH ENGINEER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OVI, R 17 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 42 suit scope for amendment of written declaration appeared in the Court of Appeals and presented its written statement and in the light of the parties' requests, the case was prepared by the court. In, the defendants filed a petition to amend the written statement, requesting that their lawyer file a written statement without their consultation and detailed facts could not be included in the written statement, the defendants The request for modification by the trial court was denied by the trial court. While free and open-minded, while allowing for modification of requests, modifications should not be allowed under certain conditions where the defense was attempted to be amended or the written statement amended in its entirety, Such as the claimant may not be allowed. Introducing a contradictory defense that actually changed the nature of the defense The amendment to the first written statement, sought in the present case, was for the return of the entry in the first written statement, such modification is not allowed A written statement can have different characteristics of entry and legal importance. The request for amendment of the written statement cannot be allowed to be withdrawn by the amendment, it was revealed that the defendants have sought the amendment of all paragraphs of the written statement. Introducing a contradictory defense that will change the nature of the defense that was originally taken by the defendants in their written statement. Such modification cannot be allowed under O VI, R 17.
