Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision. No.424 of 1985, decided on 16th February 1986.

‑‑‑0 . V I : R.17‑‑Amendment of plaint‑‑ Amendment has to be allowed liberally which is necessary for determination of dispute between parties particularly when amendments were sought at very initial stage of suit.

‑‑‑O.VI, R.17‑‑Amendment of plaint‑‑Prayer for striking off two defendants and. amendments concerning some of relief s‑‑Trial Court rejecting application observing that nature of suit would be changed in case amendments prayed for were allowed--‑Perusal of Trial Court's order showing that amendments sought were refused without applying judicial' mind‑‑Trial Court in detailed order dismissed ‑ application seeking amendment but in short order of same date recorded in order sheet, request to delete two defendants appeared ‑to have been accepted but consequential amendments sought to be made in plaint had been refused‑‑Observation of Trial Court that no legal justification was found to allow amendment application unfounded and arbitrary‑‑Trial Court's short order and detailed order, being in conflict, order rejecting application for amendment set aside with direction that amendment application would be decided afresh by‑ Trial Court.

M. A. Rehman and Jawaad S. Khawaja for Petitioner.

Ch. Fazal Hussain for Respondent No. 1.

Hamayun Shafi for Respondent No.2.

Ch. Sadiq Hussain for Respondent No.5.

Syed Najamul Hassan Kazmi for Respondent No.6.

Dates of hearing: 28th January and 10th February 1986.

This revision is directed against the order, dated 30‑1‑1985 of the learned Civil Judge, Lahore,‑ whereby application under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. for permission to amend the plaint filed by the petitioner‑plaintiff was dismissed.

2. The relevant facts briefly stated are that the petitioner filed a suit seeking reliefs of declaration permanent injunction and recovery, of Rs.2,51,55,185.15 from the respondent‑defendants including three American Companies, respondents Nos. 2 to 4. These companies as had submitted applications far deletion of their names from the array of defendants requested that the said applications be decided first before proceeding with the hearing of application seeking amendment of the plaint. The necessity to seek amendment arose partly as the bank guarantees and the performance bond in respect of which declaration and permanent injunction as consequential relief was prayed had been rendered infructuous due to the encashment of these bank guarantees and the performance bond after the rejection of the application seeking temporary injunction. The petitioner in view of the situation so prevailing sought amendment of the plaint so as to amend the averments concerning the declaration and to delete the reliefs pertaining thereto and to strike off the Federation of Pakistan and the Dobai Bank from the array of the defendants. The petitioner also sought permission to include additional pleas and submissions with respect to the grievances earlier made against the foreign companies respondents No.' to 4. The learned Trial Court rejected this application observing that the nature of the suit will be changed in case the amendments prayed for are allowed,' and that no legal justification was made out for allowing the amendments.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the application as well as the amended plaint submitted before the learned trial Court and argued that the necessity to strike off the two defendants and some of the reliefs prayed for arose on account of the encashment of the bank guarantees and the performance bond as a result of the dismissal of the temporary injunction application. He added that the elaboration of the original cause of action by way of additional pleas and the reliefs flowing there from does not amount to changing the nature of the quit or cause of action. It was further submitted that refusal to allow the amendment application was illegal as well as arbitrary. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.l, 5 and 6 did not oppose the revision petition while respondents Nos.2 to have not entered appearance in this revision petition as their stand was that they will join the issue only when their objection regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court is determined and it is held that the Civil Court at Lahore has personal jurisdiction over these respondents.

4. Coming to the merits of the revision petition it is to be borne in mind that the policy of law is to allow liberally the amendments in the pleadings which are necessary for the determination of the dispute between the parties particularly when the amendments are sought it the very initial stage of the suit. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the amendments sought were refused without applying judicial mind. In the detailed order the learned trial Judge dismissed the application seeking amendments but in the short order of the same date recorded in the order sheet the request to delete the two defendants appears to have been accepted. It will be seen that deletion of these two defendants from the array of defendants has been directed but the consequential amendments sought to be made in the plaint have been refused. How this could be done . It is, therefore, apparent that the observation of the learned trial Court that no legal justification was, found to allow amendment:: application is unfounded and arbitrary. The other paras. which were sought to be added to elaborate the cause of F action by including certain pleas against the remaining defendants should have received serious attention of the learned trial Court. In these circumstances and in view of the order that I propose to pass. I deem it appropriate not to make further comments in this respect. The short order and the detailed order passed being in conflict and also because the policy of law is to allow amendments liberally I have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order with the direction that the amendment application will be decided afresh by the learned trial Court after decision of the objection regarding jurisdiction which question has also been directed to be decided afresh in the connected revision petition. Subject to the above direction the impugned order is set aside. The revision petition is accepted accordingly. The parties, are however, left to bear their own costs.

M.Y.H. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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