Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition No. 31 of 1978, decided on 20th November, 1985.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, dated 24‑10‑1977 passed in Civil Revision No. 761 of 1977).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, r. 17‑ Amendment of pleadings at revisional stage‑‑Suit for rendition of accounts dismissed as not maintainable‑‑Appeal failed‑‑Application seeking amendment of plaint at revisional stage so as to convert claim from rendition of account to one for payment of money, disallowed‑‑Finding of High Court that petitioner was virtually attempting to set up a new case and that too after an inordinate delay upheld‑‑Impugned order being unexceptionable, leave to appeal refused.
Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. M.Z. Khalil, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 20th November, 1985.
‑This petition arises out of suit proceedings which the petitioner had instituted for rendition of accounts against the respondent. On the pleadings of the parties a preliminary issue was framed by the trial Court "as to whether the suit was not maintainable in the present form". The learned trial Court, therefore, found it unnecessary to go into the evidence and dismissed the suit on the ground of its non‑maintainability. The said judgment was challenged in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge which was dismissed on 17‑3‑1977. The matter was thereupon taken up by the petitioner to the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction and it was only during the course of arguments when the patent defect in the form of the suit was brought to the petitioner, he came up with an application seeking amendment of the plaint than converting his claim from rendition of accounts to one for payment of money. It was contended that instead of dismissing the suit the trial Court should have directed the petitioner to amend his plaint.
2. The learned High Court, however, came to hold that by claiming a specific amount at the revisional stage, the petitioner was virtually attempting to set up a new case and that too after an inordinate delay The pertinent issue in the case had been framed on basis of the pleadings but the petitioner continued with the suit for long years and did not feel inclined to amend plaint but rather persisted with his suit in the form it was filed.
3. The above findings of the learned High Court are unexceptionable and call for no interference. The petition merits no consideration and it is dismissed accordingly.
M. I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer