| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 2764 2015 SLD 2764 2015 PLJ 109 |
Lahore High Court
C.R. No. 930 of 2013, heard on 13.6.2014.
M. SOHAIL IQBAL BHATTI, J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
C.R. No. 930 of 2013, heard on 13.6.2014.
M. SOHAIL IQBAL BHATTI, J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD SHABBIR and 4 others
VS
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and 4 others--Respondents
Law:
Section:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----O. XLI, R. 27--Production of documentary evidence as additional evidence--Production of additional evidence of certified copies of mutation and khasra gardawari--Validity--Petitioners had failed to give any justification that as to why same documents were not produced during trial of suit even written statement was filed in year 2008 and neither these documents were attached with written statement to specifically deny claim made by respondent nor these were mentioned--Acceptance of application to extent of production of cheque and amendment in written statement would open pandora box--Cheque which relates to year 2005, is not required by appellate Court to decide appeal on merits rather production of same cheque would result into introducing a new cause of action which may change nature of entire litigation. [Pp. 112, 113 & 114] A, D & E Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----O. VII, R. 17 & Ss. 107 & 151--Amendment in pleadings--Application to extent of amendment in written statement was dismissed--Proposed amendment would only be allowed in such manner and on such terms as may be just and necessary for purpose of determining real questions in controversy between parties, but in present case, petitioners had filed application under Order VI Rule 17, CPC to introduce a new plea which do not relate to controversy raised in plaint as well as in written statement--Proposed amendment is not necessary to determine real controversy regarding validity and originality of gift mutations challenged in plaint--Application for amendment may be filed at any stage in interest of justice but while allowing such amendment consideration for Court should be that no such amendment should be allowed which is aimed at changing complexion of case altogether or would introduce a new case based on new cause of action. Judgment This civil revision is directed against the order, dated 10.12.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jehanian through which the learned Additional District Judge partially allowed the application under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC and under Order VI Rule 17 read with Sections 107 and 151,…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492