Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1339 of 1986, decided on 10th November,1986.

‑

‑‑‑ Art. 199‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0. IV, R.17‑‑Amendment of written statement‑‑ Concurrent judgments‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Two Courts below applying conscious mind to facts and circumstances of case and after giving cogent reasons in support of their decisions dismissed application of defendant for amendment of written statement‑‑ Courts below without flouting relevant provisions of law decided matter in accordance with law laid down by superior Courts‑‑Concurrent judgments of two Courts below not suffering from legal infirmity or jurisdictional defects, held, could not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.

Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob Kung for Petitioner.

Through this Constitutional petition, Rehmat Ali, wants this Court to declare orders, dated 3‑5‑1986 of learned Civil Judge, Lodhran and, dated 28‑9‑1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

The facts leading up to this petition briefly are that Ghulam Nabi, respondent, filed suit for possession by pre‑emption against Rehmat Ali petitioner. The suit was resisted. Issues were framed and the evidence produced by the plaintiff was recorded when the petitioner moved application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. for permission to amend the written statement. The learned trial Court dismissed the application on 3‑5‑1986. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed revision which was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge, Multan who vide order, dated 28‑9‑1986, dismissed the same Hence this petition,

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the reasons given by the learned Courts below that the plea raised by the petitioner/ def end ant was afterthought is factually wrong inasmuch as the petitioner had also produced receipts to prove the payment of District Council fee of Rs.3,750 and stamps valuing Rs.2,000.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the learned trial Court had a discretion to permit amendment of the written statement; that the two Courts below have applied conscious mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and have given reason in support of their decisions; that the A Court below have not flouted the relevant provisions of law and have decided the matter in accordance with the law laid down by the superior Courts. I do not see any legal infirmity in the impugned orders which do not suffer from jurisdictional defect. The submissions made by the

1025

learned counsel do not make out a case for interference with the impugned orders in exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

5. For what has been said above, there being no merit, the petition is dismissed in limine.

H.B.T. /R‑3/L Constitutional petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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