Find a Lawyer

-- O. VI, r. 17-Amendment of plaint - Discretion of Court in allowing--Trial and revisional Courts refusing to exercise discretion in favour of plaintiff and disallowing his application for amendment of plaint-Held, High Court not to substitute its own discretion for that of lower tribunals unless discretion exercised, arbitrary or capricious-Held further, jurisdiction to decide includes to decide rightly or wrongly-( Plaint).

Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar and others P L D 1974 S C 139 rel.

Mirza Hafeezur Rahman for Petitioner.

Jehangir A. Jhoja for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 13th December, 1982.

This is a writ petition arising out of a pending suit before a learned Civil Judge at Lahore.

2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit. He moved an application under Order VI, rule 17, C. P. C., for amendment of his plaint. The trial Court rejected the application and the learned Additional District Judge in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction also refused to allow the same.

3. The learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition had sought relief in terms that I should set aside the impugned orders but he has failed to ask for a relief in the nature of mandamus. Apart from this omission, the fact remains that a mere setting aside of the orders would place him on no better footing. A bare reading of Order VI, rule 17 of the C. P. C. makes it clear that the Court may allow the pleadings to be amended at any stage. It is quite obvious that the matter has been left by the framers of the law in the discretion of the Court. The revi sional Court has also refused to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. The writ jurisdiction is also almost akin to the revisional jurisdiction except for the fact that it is broader in its various aspects. How ever, there is consistent view of this Court that it would not substitute its discretion for that of the lower tribunals unless the discretion exercised by them is found to be arbitrary or capricious.

4. The amendment sought was to attack the validity of the sale-deed in favour of respondent No. 4 and also an additional plea that being a non- 1 citizen of Pakistan she could not acquire the property. The two Courts below for reasons recorded have refused to oblige the petitioner acting in the exercise of their discretionary jurisdiction. In view of the law laid down in Muhammad Hussain Munir v, Sikandar and others (1) where there is a jurisdiction to decide then the Court has the jurisdiction to decide it rightly or wrongly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the orders of the two Courts below suffer from want of juris diction or they have failed to do what the law required them to do or they usurped a jurisdiction which was not available to them. The case, there fore, does not fall within the ambit of any of the clauses of Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981.

5. Keeping in view the over all circumstances of the case, I do not feel that it is a fit case for the exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

6. There is already a previous order by my learned brother Abaid Ullah, J. to dispose of the suit within six months. This period has elapsed. I would direct the learned Civil Judge to dispose of this matter on priority basis and if necessary to proceed with the matter from day to day. The case is to be concluded within three months without fail. A weekly progress report is to be sent to the Registrar of this Court.

K.M. A. Writ 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.