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 Revision No. 326/BWP of 1983, heard on 6th March, 1984
--S. 115 & O. VI, r. 17--Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.15--Amendment of plaint--Amendment allowed by trial Court a formal sort of amendment, not designed to set up a new case--Revision against order of amendment dismissed.
Kh. Muhammad Bashir Butt and K. A. Chauhan for Petitioner.
M.M. Bhatti for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 6th March, 1984.
This revision petition has been directed against the order, dated 2-7-1983 pronounced by the learned-Civil Judge 1st Class, Minchinabad who had allowed the amendment of the plaint. 2. The facts giving rise to the instant revision petition in substance are that Chand Khan was the owner of the land in dispute measuring 171 Kanals and 2 Marlas who sold the same in favour of Muhammad Bashir, the present petitioner. Mst. Shama Begum sought to pre-empt the sale of the land in dispute on the basis of her preferential right of pre-emption. After the written statement was filed, she moved a petition for the amendment of the plaint: She intended to correct the description of the property which had erroneously been given in the plaint. The property in dispute has been wrongly described. Instead of square No. 470/6 and Square No. 470/2 has been mentioned and the area of field No. 6 of Square No. 470/6 which measures 7 Kanals and 12 Marlas has been stated as 6 Kanals in the plaint. The total area of the land in dispute according to the sale-deed is 171 Kanals and 2 Marlas which has rightly been mentioned in the plaint. It is a formal sort of amendment is not designed to set up a new case. It may also be noted that In, Ch. Ahmad Din and 2 others v. The Australasia Bank Ltd., 1971 S C M R 507 it was laid down that the order allowing amendment of the plaint is not a 'case decided' within the meaning of section 115'A C.P.C. and a revision petition against the said order could not be entertained. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not cite an); authority of the Supreme Court that the above-quoted precedent Win been dissented from. I, therefore, see no merit in this revision and dismiss the same. I, however, make no order as to costs. M.Y.H. Revision dismissed.