Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 16‑R of 1.980, decided on 9th February, 1980.

(On appeal from the order dated 3‑12‑1979, passed by the Baluchistan, High Court, Quetta, in Civil Revision No. 33 of 1979).

--O. VI, r. 17‑Pleadings‑Amendment‑Litigant can always seek amendment of his pleadings provided he satisfies Court as to main tainability.

Mian Nusrat Ullah, Senior Advocate and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents

Date of hearing: 9th February, 1980

The petitioner is lessee of certain area in the Pro vince of Baluchistan in which lie is engaged in the operation of Coal Mining. Vide letter, dated 8‑9‑1979, the Joint Director Mineral Development, Quetta, intimated the Deputy Commissioner, Loralai, that "it was observed by a Survey Team that Messrs Sardar Mir Usman Khan Tareen and Messrs New Quetta Mining Company are working unauthorizedly encroaching in the granted area of Messrs Syed Muhammad Hassan & Sons. It is violation of Jules 55 and 99 of the Baluchistan Mining Concession Rules, 1970. You are therefore, requested to kindly look into the matter personally and stop the unauthorized working/encroachment being conducted by Messrs Sardar Mir Usman Khan Tareen and Messrs New Quetta Mining Company in the granted area of Messrs Syed Muhammad Hassan & Sons under intimation to the undersigned".

Feeling aggrieved of the contents of the said letter, the petitioner filed suit against the Joint Director, Mineral Development, Government of Baluchis tan, Quetta and the other two respondents for declaration that the instructions given to the Deputy Commissioner, Loralai therein were tantamount to condemning him unheard and so the said instructions were without jurisdic tion. By way of consequential relief, he prayed for the grant of an injunction against the respondents with a view to restraining them from implementing the contents of the said letter. As an ad interim measure, the trial Court issued an injunction against the respondents and adjourned the case to 27‑9‑1979, on which date the respondents were asked to file their reply to the said injunction application.

The respondents, who were evidently aggrieved of the said order went in appeal to the Court of the District Judge, Quetta, who vide his order dated 14‑10‑1979, accepted the same with the result that he recalled the ad interim order issued, by the trial Court and also dismissed the injunction application of the petitioner. This order was challenged by the petitioner in the High Court but a learned Single Judge, vide his order dated 3‑12‑1979 dismissed the same.

Mian Nusratullah, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner urged before us manifold contentions against the order of the High Court. But when he realised that he was unable to persuade us to agree with, he express ed his desire to withdraw this petition subject to his right to seek the amend ment of his plaint in the trial Court, as well as filing a fresh application for the grant of an injunction against the implementation of the impugned instructions contained in letter, dated 8‑9‑1979, issued by the Joint Director, Mineral Development, Baluchistan, Quetta, to the Deputy Commissioner, Loralai. Considering that a litigant can always seek the amendment of his pleadings, as well as file a fresh application for the grant of an injunction provided be can satisfy the Court as to their maintainability, we see no reason to disallow the request made by the learned counsel.

This petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to file an application for the amendment of his plaint in the trial Court, as well as a fresh application for the grant of an injunction against the impugned action taken against him, but it is needless to say that the same would be disposed of according to law.

Petition 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.