Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section:

(a) Appeal (Civil)----   ---Failure to sign memo of appeal-Not fatal-Appeal deemed to have been filed on date it was originally presented to Court and not on date on which it is subsequently signed with permission of Court-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, r. 1.   (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-----   -----O. VI, r. 17-Amendment in plaint introducing new case-Not permissible-Suit based on one title, sought to be amended so as to rest on another title Amendment not permitted.   An amendment in the plaint introducing a new case should not be allowed. Where the suit is based on one title, amendment into claim based on another title should not be permitted.   Where, therefore, in the original plaint the right to pre-empt was based on a particular relationship with the vendor and the plaintiff claimed to be heir of the vendor under the Personal Law and, therefore, possessing a right to pre-empt but in the amendment that he wanted to make the plaintiff was seeking a declaration that the vendor was a limited owner and that her rights of alienation of suit land were restricted, held, that the plaintiff by the amendment sought for, was trying to put forth a new case and as such the amendment sought for, could not be allowed.   A I R 1936 Mad. 632 and A I R 1936 Mad. 785 distinguished.   A I R 1938 Lah. 712 ; 1921 P C 50 and 1935 Pat. 463 cited but not produced.   P L D 1960 Lah. 975 ; 12 U L W R 487 ; A I R 1948 Mad. 179 and A I R 1947 All. 59 ref. JUDGMENT   Mst. Jia Bibi respondent sold the suit land measuring 5 kanals 4 marlas to Muhammad Fazal respondent by a sale deed registered on 22-5-58. Muhammad Hanif appellant brought a suit to pre-empt the sale claiming the right of prior purchase on the ground that Jia Bibi vendor was his real paternal aunt and that the vendee was a stranger. The vendee in his written statement denied any knowledge of the relationship of the plaintiff' with Mst. Jia Bibi and at the same time asserted that the plaintiff did not possess any right of prior purchase. The trial Court, i.e., the Court of the Sub-Judge, Mirpur framed the following issues :-   Does the plaintiff…