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.
Writ Petition No.20/R of 1985, decided on 27th August, 1986.
---O. VI, R.17--Amendment of pleadings, when allowed--No amendment could be allowed at any stage, but nobody could amendment as a matter of right and there must be sufficient to permit amendment--When there were no sufficient reasons amendment, Trial Court rightly disallowed application for of plaint.
---Art.199--Constitutional petition, held, could not be a substitute of second revision petition, when revision petition had been dismissed by District Judge.--[Revision (civil)].
Ch. Abdul Ghani for Petitioners.
The petitioners brought a suit in 1980 seeking a declaration that the petitioners were lawfully entitled to the property left by Rahim Bakhsh, their predecessor-in-interest. After six years the moved an application for amendment of plaint in to incorporate, a challenge to the orders passed by the District Collector Multan 21-12-1970 and by Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) Mailsi c. 28-8-1971. The petitioners also sought to introduce a contention that their predecessor-in-interest Rahim Bakhsh was of unsound mind. The trial Court rejected the application on the ground that re-amendment could be allowed after such a delay and that it cannot be believed that the petitioners were not aware of the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was also observed that the mental condition of Rahim Bakhsh did not be unknown to the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the order of the trial Court dated 18-6-1986 in revision before the learned District Judge, Vehari but the revision petition was dismissed on 13-7-1986. This brings the petitioners to the High Court invoking it constitutional jurisdiction.
2. It is true that the amendment could be allowed at any stage but nobody can claim amendment as a matter of right. There have be sufficient reasons to permit the amendment. In the present cast the Court of competent jurisdiction has found that the claim of the petitioners that they were not aware of the orders now sought to be challenged by amendment, was not justified. Similarly it is obvious' that the mental condition of Rahim Bakhsh shall have been well-knows, to the petitioners at the time of the filing of the suit. T1ie order of the trial Court not to permit amendment of the plaint is, therefore, justified. Similarly, no objection can be taken to the order passed by the learned District Judge in revision. The writ petition cannot be a substitute of a second revision petition which for all intents and purpose it seeks to be. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
H.B.T./A-182/ L Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer