Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 21 of 1983, decided on 12th January, 1983.

‑‑ O. VI, r. 17‑Written statement, amendment of‑Trial Court allow ing amendment of written statement after framing of issues and before recording of evidence‑Proposed amendment with regard to limitation in a pre‑emption suit‑Application for amendment, held, cannot be declared as belated or with ulterior motive.

Syed Sardar Shah Bokhari for Petitioner.

The facts giving rise to this Civil Revision in brief are that Arif Ali and Faiz Ahmad respondents, herein, purchased the suit land from Bakhsha, father of Muhammad Rafiq petitioner, through registered sale deed dated 5th August, 1979. On 24th July, 1980 Muhammad Rafiq, petitioner herein filed a suit for possession through pre‑emption against the respondents before Civil Judge, Pakpattan. The respondents contested the suit raising preli minary objections and denying the averments of the plaint. The issues were framed and the case was adjourned for evidence on several dates. On 20th April, 1982, the respondents/defendants moved application under Order VI, rule 17, C. P. C. seeking permission to amend written statement to raise therein the plea that they having obtained the possession of the suit land one month prior to the registration of the sale deed, the suit was time‑barred.

This application was resisted by the petitioner/ plaintiff, the trial Court, however, allov9ed amendment on 13th December, 1982. Hence this revision.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application being belated ; being mala fide to prolong the trial ; the amendment prayed for although serving no useful purpose to the defendants, may yet cause substantial loss to the petitioner/plaintiff and as such it was allowed illegally or at least with material irregularity.

3. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the material which has been placed on the record of this revision I find that the pro posed amendment is with regard to limitation in a pre‑emption suit ; the trial Court had jurisdiction to allow or refuse the proposed amendment ; the learned trial Court has applied its mind in the matter and given reasons in support of its order ; the evidence of the parties having not been recorded when the application for amendment was moved, as such the application for amendment cannot be declared as a belated or moved with ulterior motives.

4. For what has been found above it cannot be said that the impugned orders were passed illegally or with material irregularity. It is not a fit case for interference in revision. Dismissed in limine.

M. A. K. Revision 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.