| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 3275 2019 SLD 3275 2019 PLD 59 |
Balochistan High Court
Civil Revision No. 362 of 2018, decision & hearing Dated: 28-05-2019.
ABDULLAH BALOCH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Abdul Khair Achakzai
Respondent(s) by: Muhammad Aslam Jamali, Assistant Advocate General
Civil Revision No. 362 of 2018, decision & hearing Dated: 28-05-2019.
ABDULLAH BALOCH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Abdul Khair Achakzai
Respondent(s) by: Muhammad Aslam Jamali, Assistant Advocate General
ABDUL MANAN
VS
ABDUL HADI AND 7 OTHERS
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: S.151,O.I,VI,R.10,17
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 39,42,54
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VI, R. 17 & O. I, R. 10---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42, 54 & 39---Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of instruments---Amendment in the pleadings---Petition for impleadment of a party was filed by the interveners which was accepted---Plaintiff moved application for amendment of plaint but same was dismissed---Contention of plaintiff was that interveners had entered into an agreement of sale with regard to suit property and they had claimed possession of said property which came in his knowledge during pendency of present suit---Validity---Plaintiff at the time of filing of present suit was not in knowledge of "new facts" which were brought on record by the interveners---Plaintiff had right to amend the plaint subject to the conditions that proposed amendment did not change the character and complexion of suit and such amendment was necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties---Any defect in the form of a suit was not to culminate in its dismissal---Court was to consider the request of amendment in a broader perspective and remain liberal and flexible while exercising jurisdiction under O.VI, R.17, C.P.C.---Court had suo motu jurisdiction to grant permission for amendment in the pleadings without any formal written request of a party---High Court observed that if proposed amendments were not allowed then purpose of present suit would frustrate and multiple litigations would start between the parties---Proposed amendment did not cause any prejudice to either of the parties---Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was result of mis-reading of record and misconception of law which was not sustainable---Order passed by the Trial Court was set aside and plaintiff was allowed to amend the suit---Revision was allowed, accordingly. Javed Iqbal v. Abdul Aziz and another PLD 2006 SC 66 rel THIS ORDER PASSED BY: ABDULLAH BALOCH, J.--- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 19th November, 2018 (hereinafter referred as "the impugned Order") passed by the learned Civil Judge-IV, Quetta (referred hereinafter as "the trial Court") whereby the…
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