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.
Writ Petition No. 4171 of 1984, decided on 4th November, 1984.
---O. VI, r. 17--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Amendment of pleadings within discretion of trial Court to allow/refuse--Courts while allowing/refusing amendment having given sound reasons--No provision of law flouted by Courts--No evidence on record present to show that amendment sought for was not necessary for purpose of determining real question in controversy between parties--Interference declined by High Court in constitutional jurisdiction in circumstances.
Agha Taj Muhammad for Petitioner.
Ashiq Hussain Malik for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 4th November, 1984.
Through this Constitutional Petition, Hafiz Sultan Mehmood petitioner wants this Court to declare the orders, dated 28-6-1983 and 10-7-1984 passed by learned Civil Judge, respondent No. 9 and learned Additional District Judge, respondent No. 10, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading upto this petition, in brief, are that on 30-10-1980, the petitioner filed suit for Specific Performance against respondents Nos. 1 to 4. In the meantime, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 sold their shares in the suit land to Liaqat Hayat and two others. Mst Iqbal Begum also sold her share to Riasat Ali and Mirza respondents Nos. 6 and 8. The new vendees Liaqat, Riasat, Siraja and Mirza filed suit for ejectment against the petitioner. The suit was decreed. The appeal filed by the petitioner also failed. Thereafter, the petitioner made application under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. for the amendment of plaint so as to include Killa No.17 as subject-matter of the suit. The application was dismissed on 28-6-1983. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Sargodha on 10-7-1984, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application for amendment was dismissed arbitrarily, and that the amendment sought for would not have changed the nature of the suit. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the trial Court.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that it was within the discretion of the trial Court to allow/refuse application for amendment of pleadings, that the Courts below have applied conscious mind and given sound reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by them, that the learned counsel has failed to point out any provision of law having been flouted by the Courts below and that the amendment sought for was not necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties.
5. For what has been stated above, I am of the view that it is not fit case for interference with the impugned order of the Court in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
N.B.T. Writ refused.