| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLD 726 = 1992 CLC 143 |
Quetta High Court
Civil Miscellaneous Admiralty Appeal No.1 of 1990, Applications Nos.259 of 1988 and 194 of 1989, decided on 10th October, 1991.
Presented By: Before Munawar Ahmed Mirza, CJ and Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, J
Tariq Hussain for Appellant. Muhammad Naeem and Muhammad Riaz Ahmed for
Respondent.
Civil Miscellaneous Admiralty Appeal No.1 of 1990, Applications Nos.259 of 1988 and 194 of 1989, decided on 10th October, 1991.
Presented By: Before Munawar Ahmed Mirza, CJ and Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, J
Tariq Hussain for Appellant. Muhammad Naeem and Muhammad Riaz Ahmed for
Respondent.
m.v. KAPTAN YOUSUF KALKAVAN---Appellant
VERSUS
SEMCO SALVAGE PTD Ltd.---Respondent
Law: Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)
Section: 3(2)(h)
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 17 , 115
Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)--- ----S. 3(2)(h)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, R.17---Suit in admiralty jurisdiction---Amendment of plaint---Entitlement to---Amendment sought to be incorporated in plaint would amount to putting up new case-- Arbitration award being sought to be filed by seeking amendment in plaint, could not be made basis of claim of plaintiff and if amendment sought for, was allowed, same, apart from putting up a new case, would also amount to changing cause of action of suit which would be detrimental to the interests of defendant---Plaintiff, however, would be at liberty to use arbitration award as evidence to substantiate its claim during trial of suit. 1912-3 Kings Bench 257; A I R 1922 Oudh 15; A I R 1950 Orissa 1969; A I R 1934 Lah. 887; A I R 1921 Cal. 770; 1976 C L C 352; Maritime Liens by Thomas (British Shipping Liens Vo1.14) para.243, p.139 and Maritime Law Salvage by Geoffery Brice 613 p.269;1985 C L C 1355 ref. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ----O.VI, R.11---Amendment in the amount of claim---Such amendment could not be permitted for the sole reason that originally when suit was filed claim was based on expenditure made by plaintiff for rendering salvage services to defendant on the statement of expenditure but through amendment same was being claimed on the basis of award and amount of claim had also been enhanced. 1980 C L C 256; P L D 1976 Kar. 23; P L D 1956 Sindh 47; P L D 1985 SC345;PLD1973SC507;PLD1963SC191;1969SCMR277;PLD 1971 SC 762 and P L D 1964 Kar.172 ref. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.VI, R.17---Amendment of plaint---Principles for consideration when allowing or declining amendment. Amendment would be allowed at any stage it if did not change the cause of action of the suit. Amendment would be allowed to seek consequential relief arising from the cause of action originally incorporated in plaint. Amendment would be allowed to add additional relief available to plaintiff even before higher Courts of jurisdiction such like High Court and Supreme Court. Amendment would also be allowed for converting a suit from one relief to another i.e. if…