Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 114

P L D 1995 Quetta 5 Constitutional Petition No.11 of 1994, decided on 13th June, 1994. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- --_-0. V, R.17, 0.1, R.10 & OXLVII, R.1---Application for amendment of plaint at the fag-end of trial was dismissed by Trial Court as also the Appellate Court---Successor Judge of Appellate Court, however, accepted review petition and recalled earlier order of rejection of amendment application by his predecessor---Validity---Order in question, dog amendment of would convert the suit, into another suit of a different and inconsistent character therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to allow application for amendment moved after about eight years when suit- was instituted---Plaintiff's conscious silence despite knowledge for a .number of years had created valuable right in favour of defendants which could not be ignored, unless justifiable explanation was furnished which was lacking herein---Plaintiff could not be allowed to substantially amend pleadings by introducing new cause of action of change the context of original suit-- Order in question, being without jurisdiction, was thus, of no legal effect. PLD 1960 Lah. 975; PLD 1961 BJ 62; PLD 1985 SC 345; PLD 1982 AJK (SC) 64; 1987 CLC 1332 and 1977 SCMR 284 rel. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----0. VI, R.17---Bar to amendment of pleadings---Plaintiff could not be allowed to substantially amend the pleadings by introducing new cause of action or change the context of original suit. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 114 & OXLVII, R.1---Power of review, exercise of---Essentials---Main object providing power of review, is to enable same forum for correcting its own errors which have inadvertently occasioned, on account of some defect, clerical or arithmetical mistakes, discovery of new and important matter which was not within the knowledge and could not be pursued by due diligence and other sufficient cause-=-Such authority, however, could not be invoked for rectifying improper appreciation of legal or factual aspects, erroneous, assumption of facts already existing on record, procedural mistakes, negligence of party, possibility of having different view…