Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 1032 of 1984, decided on 5th November, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 1‑10‑1984 passed in Writ Petition No. 132 of 1984).

‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, r.17‑Amendment of pleadings‑‑Petitioner having given consent for seeking amendment in pleadings, writ petition disposed of‑‑Words "after allowing the landlord to amend his pleadings" employed by High Court in operative part of consent order disposing of writ petition, impugned on ground that it left no discretion with trial Court to examine question of amendment on merits‑‑Words "after allowing the landlord to amend his pleadings did not have effect of a fait accompli but are subject to terms of consent recorded earlier in order‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Munir Hussain Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab. Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing: 5th November, 1984.

In this petition, the petitioner assails the operative part of the order, dated 1‑10‑1984 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 132 of 1984, whereby while doing so the words "after allowing the landlord to amend his pleadings" were used, which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, left no discretion with the trial Court to examine the question of amendment on merits although the consent was only given for seeking amendment in the pleadings.

These words, in our view, do not have the effect of a fat accompli but are subject to the terms of the consent recorded earlier in the order.

This will suffice to dispose of this petition, which is dismissed.

M. I. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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