Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

NIAMAT ULLAH KHAN versus DISTRICT JUDGE, RAJANPUR


Interim Constitution Order 1981 Article 9 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O VL, r 17 Amendments to Petitions The use of constitutional jurisdiction in the discretionary relief of the court states that the trial court amended the petitions The application / permit for the application was not approved. Reasons for disallowing the application In the circumstances there can be no exception to the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction

1985 M L D 970

[Lahore]

Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J

NIAMAT ULLAH KHAN‑‑Petitioner

versus

DISTRICT JUDGE, RAJANPUR and others‑‑Respondents

Writ Petition No. 214 of 1984, decided on 24th March, 1984.

(a) Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)‑‑

‑‑‑Art.9‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.Vl, r. 17 Amendment of pleadings‑‑Discretionary relief by Court‑‑Principle for exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction stated‑‑Discretion of trial Court to allow/ disallow application for amendment of pleadings‑‑Trial Court giving cogent reasons for disallowing application‑‑No exception, held, could be taken in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction in circumstances.

(b) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑

‑‑‑S. 15‑‑Right of pre‑emption‑‑Plaintiff taking complex plea in a para. of plaint‑‑Plaintiff, held, might lead evidence consistent with such para. if so advised.

Sardar Muhammad Anwar Khan Dreeshak for Petitioner.

Asif Saeed Khan Khosa for Respondents.

ORDER

This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 whereby Niamat Ullah petitioner wants this Court to declare the orders dated 19‑7‑1983 and 5‑12‑1983 of the Civil Judge and District Judge respectively, to be without lawful authority and of‑ no legal effect.

2. The facts leading up to this petition, in brief, are that Niamat Ullah Khan petitioner filed suit for possession by pre‑emption Subsequently, he moved application for amendment of plaint which was dismissed on 19‑7‑1983. Thu revision against this order failed on 8‑12‑1983, hence this writ petition.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that since it was within the discretion of the trial Court to allow/disallow the application for the amendment of the pleadings and that the learned trial Court has given cogent reasons for disallowing ,the application, therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned orders. The petition, has, therefore, to be dismissed.

4. Before parting with the judgment, I would like to observe that since in para. No.4 of the plaint, it has been stated that;

< --[if gte vml 1]> < [endif]-->

therefore the petitioner may lead evidence consistent with this paragraph, if so advised.

A.A.

Writ refused

Find a Lawyer Near You

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

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
advocates from Lakki Marwat lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.