| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 1919 2026 SLD 1919 = 2026 CLC 212 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 50314 of 2025, decided on 17th September, 2025.
Presented By: Before Raheel Kamran, J
Ch. Zahid Imran for Petitioners.
Writ Petition No. 50314 of 2025, decided on 17th September, 2025.
Presented By: Before Raheel Kamran, J
Ch. Zahid Imran for Petitioners.
KHALID MEHMOOD and another ---Petitioners
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD ALI alias Tipu and others ---Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: VI,17
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.VI, R.17---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Plaintiff failing to mention in plaint exact date, time, place and witnesses of the transaction---Amendment in pleadings sought in order to fill such lacunas---Legality and permissibility--The petitioners/plaintiffs filed a Writ Petition challenging orders passed by the trial court and district court, respectively, whereby their application under O. VI R.17, C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint was partly allowed and their civil revision was dismissed---The petitioners had sought to substitute and expand paragraph No.1 of their plaint to introduce new facts, including specific dates, witnesses, and details of payments allegedly made over 44 years ago in connection with the purchase of the suit property---The trial and appellate courts held that while a minor clarification about sale receipts could be permitted, the proposed additions amounted to a material change in the factual foundation of the case after completion of trial and remand proceedings, rendering the same as an afterthought---Held: In the application for amendment, the petitioners sought to delete جز"ب" of the plaint and to add amended جز"ب" in its place, which prayer was allowed by the Trial Court---This amendment related to the receipts for the sale consideration---The Trial Court observed that these receipts were already mentioned in the original plaint and were part of the record---This part of proposed amendment was correctly deemed a clarification and necessary for the proper adjudication of the existing controversy---Regarding the second amendment sought by the petitioners/plaintiffs, a side by side comparison of the original plaint and the proposed insertions revealed that the proposed amendments were not just a clarification, but a complete overhaul of the factual matrix---It sought to introduce, for the very first time, the specific date of the alleged agreement, the names of three witnesses, the exact time and place of the transaction and a detailed breakdown of installment payments with specific dates and amounts---These were not minor details rather…