Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 1568 of 1977, decided on 4th.December, 1979.

-- O. VI1, r. 17-Plaint, amendment of--Respondent seeking amendment of Khata No. 536 as Khata No. 563 and praying to . record certain killa numbers in Khata No. 563 wrongly shown in Khata No. 557-Such amendment neither affecting area nor any new killa numbers added-Amendment of plaint, held, rightly allowed in circumstances of case.-[Plaint].

Bahadar Shah and 2 others v. Sharaf and 9 others P L D 1973 Lah. 513 and Muhammad Arshad Khan and others v. Murad Khan and others P L D 1965 Pesh. 225 ref.

Hashmat Ali v. Sh. Hafizullah etc. P L D 1956'B J 33 distinguished.

Sh. Attaullah Qureshi for Appellants.

Sardar Altaf Hussain on behalf of D. M. Arby for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 24th November, 1979.

This revision has been filed against 'the order of the learned Ad ditional District Judge, Muzaffargarh at D. G. Khan, dated the 21st of June 1977 by which be allowed the amendment in the plaint.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Suit No. 180 of 1975 was filed by Jehangir Alam, a minor, through his mother on the Z5th of June, 1973 for per-empting subject-matter of two sales dated Ist of November, 1973 and 17th April, 1973 which had been occasioned in pursuance to the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, D. G. Khan dated 24th of June, 1972. The petitioner filed an appeal and tried to build up a case for partial pre-emption as certain numbers were not included in the suit which formed part of one of the khatas. This application was accepted on the 24th of April, 1977.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that by allowing the impugned amendment the learned Additional District Judge has taken away a valuable right which had accrued to the petitioner on account of carelessness and negligence of the respondent as the numbers omitted from the khata made out clearly a case of partial pre-emption.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has argued that the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly misconceived. In the plaint the suit land was recorded in Khata No. 536 whereas the khata in dispute is 563. The respondent also wanted to record Killa Nos. 49/3/1, 3/4 to Khata No. 563 as these were wrongly shown in Khata No. 557. The only point for determination in the present case is that whether it was a case of mere correction of the description of the property and defect was purely of. a formal nature for which the correction can be allowed at any stage. In the first place Khata No. 563 had been shown as 536 and seems to be a typographical mistake and Killas No&. 4 /3/1, 3/4 were shown in Khata No. 557 instead of 563. It was, therefore, never a case of the addition of some more land in the suit so as to disentitle the respondent to apply for the amendment. It has been held in Bahadar Shah and 2 others v. Sharaf and 9 others (P L D 1973 Lah. 513) that the description of land as given in the plaint and sale-deed tallying in respect of the numbers, Khatas and areas the amendment of the plaint could be allowed. In this connection it was observed that in disposing of the application for amendment the trial Court has not considered the fact that the entire area had been correctly given in the plaint and the khata numbers had also been correctly shown. The case reported a3 Muhammad Arshad Khan and others v. Murad Khan and others (P L D 1965 Pesh. 225) was also a case of pre-emption and the plaintiff had omitted to include one khasra number and had misdescribed another, It was held that the defect was of a formal nature and could be allowed to be corrected under Order VI, rule 17, C. P. C.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand relied on Hashmat All v. Sh. Hafizullah etc. (P L D 1956 B J 33). In this case an amendment had been sought for adding items of properties omitted from the plaint duel to alleged inadvertence. This case is distinguishable for the simple reason 8 that this was a case of addition of numbers and as such the amendment was rightly refused. In the present case as already indicated above there was only misdescription of one khata and killa numbers of one khata[ were wrongly shown in another khata. This did not affect either the area nor any new killa numbers were added.

6. In view of the above discussion this revision has no force and is hereby dismissed with costs.

M, A, K. Revision dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.