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.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 36 of 1975, decided on 17th March 1980.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 5th November 1974 in Civil Revision No. 687 of 1974).
----O. VI, r. 17‑Pleadings‑‑Amendment of‑‑Question whether amend ment of pleadings be permitted‑Held, within discretion of trial Court- Exercise of such discretion cannot be interfered with unless same be perverse‑‑[Pleadings].
Iftikharul Haq Khan, Advocate and Ijaz Ali Sheikh, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent
Date of hearing: 17th March 1980.
The respondent had obtained an award against the petitioners. He, therefore, filed an application under the Arbitration Act to make the award a rule of the Court and the respondents had to file their objections within the statutory period of limitation. They did so, but there after they filed an application to amend the objections filed by them. This application was rejected by the trial Court, therefore, the respondents challeng ed the dismissal of their amendment application in a revision in the Lahore High Court, but as the revision was dismissed they have filed this petition for leave.
The question whether the respondents could be permitted to amend their pleadings was within the discretion of the trial Court and as the High Court on cogent grounds saw no reason to interfere with the exercise of the trial Court's discretion against the respondents, ‑no case whatever has been made out for the grant of special leave, because this Court does not grant special leave against discretionary orders unless discretion has been exercised perversely.
There is no merit in this petition, which is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer