Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 323/BWP of 1983, heard on 6th March, 1984.

---S. 115--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3--Revision---Contention, that amendment in plaint could not be allowed after period of limitation, held, could not be allowed to be raised in revision, it might be agitated when suit was being tried on merits.

---0. VI, r. 17 & S. 115--Revision against order of trial Court allowing amendment in plaint--Amendment allowed by trial Court only a formal amendment and not designed to set up a new case--Revision against amendment audit of plaint dismissed. Ch. Ahmad Din and 2 others v. The Austrlasia Bank Ltd., Bhalwal 1971 S C M R 507 rel. Kh. Muhrmmad Bashir Butt and K. A. Chauhan for Petitioner. M.M. Bhatti for Respondent. Date of hearing: 6th March, 1984.

Havaldar Abdul Shakoor, through this revision petition, has assailed the validity of 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 200 Kanals who sold the same in favour of Havaldar Abdul Shakoor, 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 land in dispute bears Khata No. 14 and Khatonis Nos. 166 to 173. But in the plaint, Khata No. 16, Khatonis Nos. 166 to 172 had been mentioned. In this manner, Khata number was wrongly described and Khatoni No. 173 was also omitted in the plaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that this amendment could not be allowed as it was made after the period of limitation. He can agitate the point of limitation When the suit is tried on merits. As regards the area in dispute, it has rightly been mentioned as 200 Kanals. In Urdu and English script, there is a slight difference in the figures 16 and 14. A mild difference can be seen in the figures 2 and 3 in Urdu script. It is a case of alsmal amendment and is not designed to set up a new case. It may be noted that in Ch. Ahmad Din and 2 others v. The Australasia Bank Litd. Bhalwal 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, C.P.C. and a revision petition against the said order could not be entertained. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not cite any authority of the Supreme Court that the above quoted precedent has been dissented from. I, therefore, see no merit in this revision petition and dismiss the same. I, however, make no order as to costs. M.Y.H. Petition dismissed.