Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 17

. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.VI, R.17---Amendment of pleadings---Essentials---Amendment in pleadings can be effected at any stage of proceedings provided same was just and necessary for purpose of determining real question in controversy between the parties---Object of O.VI, R.17, C.P.C. is that if amendment was sought for purpose of determining real controversy, same should be allowed provided other party was not prejudiced---Court has discretion in such matters which must be exercised in accordance with judicial principles, to avoid multiplicity of suits and to advance ends of justice---Amendment in pleadings must be allowed where party seeking amendment had acted in go-d faith but should be refused where application was mala fide and it tended to convert character of suit---Where it was just and necessary, even alternative plea could also be allowed to be raised or new ground or plea could be introduced---Introduction of fresh matter would not alter nature of suit---Principle applying to application for amendment of plaint can also be applied to written statement---Defendant, however, should not be allowed to make out altogether a new case or defendant having admitted a fact in written statement, could not be allowed to make out a new case by denying that fact---Defendant seeking amendment of written statement can be deemed to have raised new plea but cannot be regarded to have taken altogether a new stand, therefore, dismissal of his application by Trial Court for amendment of written statement was not maintainable---Amendment of written statement was allowed in circumstances. Malik Muhammad Yusuf for Petitioners. Sardar Rehmatullah Khan for Respondents. ORDER This revision petition has been filed against the order of Additional Sub-Judge, Kotli, passed on May 29, 1995, whereby, the amendment in the written statement was disallowed to the defendant-petitioners.   The facts forming the background of this revision petition are that two suits, one by Hokum Dad son of Sattar Din against Muhammad Sadiq s/o Dilawar, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. l to 5, for declaration and permanent injunction, and the other by Muhammad Sadiq son…