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.
P L D 1985 Supreme Court 438
Present : Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ
ALLAH YAR AND 9 OTHERS-Petitioners
versus
FAZAL KARIM AND 5 OTHERS-Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 284 of 1982, decided on 7th September, 1985.
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 24-1-1982 in. Civil Revision No. 327 of 1978).
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
-- O. I., r. 10 & O. VI, r. 17-Impleading of parties-Amendment of pleadings-Same person namely AY son of K was intended to be impleaded as defendant and no other person in his place was to be impleaded (as defendant) but by a clerical mistake instead of writing name of said person as AY son of K it was mentioned as A son of K-Finding of High Court that although same person who was in reality a vendee was intended to be impleaded his name was wrongly mentioned, therefore, it was not a case of omission to implead a person who should have been impleaded as a defendant, was held be unexceptionable being in accordance with judgment by Supreme Court in Mst. Ghulam Bibi v. Sarsa Khan P L D 1985 S C 345.
Mst. Ghulum Bib and others v. Sarsa Khan and others P L D 1985 S C 345 mentioned.
Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 7th September, 1985.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has 'been sought from judgment dated 24-1-1982 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioners (vendees-defendant's) Civil Revision challenging the grant of permission by the trial Court to the respondent plaintiff to correct the particulars of Allah Yar petitioner defendant in the array, of defendants in the plaint, was dismissed.
Allah Yar petitioner was undoubtedly one of the vendees who should have been arrayed as a defendant in the plaint. The respondents' plea was that although the "same person" namely, Allah Yar was intended to be impleaded as the defendant and no other person in his place was to be impleaded as a defendant, by a clerical mistake instead of writing the name of the said person as Allah Yar son of Kamir it was mentioned as Amir son of Kamir. The trial Court held that the mistake was clerical. The finding of the High Court for that very reason is that although the same person (who was in reality a vendee) was intended to be impleaded, his name was wrongly mentioned therefore it was not a case of omission to implead "a person" who should have been impleaded as a defendant.
It was not a mistake in impleading a wrong person. It was a' mistake in describing the correct person through a wrong name. The approach -of the High Court is unexceptionable. The amendment allowed by' the trial Court is in accordance with the principle laid down in a recent judgment of this Court in Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others v. Sarsa Khan and others (PLD1985SC345). This petition fails, leave to appeal accordingly, is refused.
M. B. A. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer