| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 4938 = 1966 SLD 4938 = 1966 PLD 59 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Revision No. (?) of 1965, decided on 21st March 1966.
Presented By: Sardar Yar Muhammad Khan, J
Sardar Muhammad Yasin Khan for Petitioner. Syed Z. A. Shah for
Respondents.
Civil Revision No. (?) of 1965, decided on 21st March 1966.
Presented By: Sardar Yar Muhammad Khan, J
Sardar Muhammad Yasin Khan for Petitioner. Syed Z. A. Shah for
Respondents.
MEHRAM SHAH-Petitioner
VERSUS
Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM AND OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 115,17
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115 read with O. VI, r. 17-Application for amendment of plaint-Whether governed by Art. 91 or Art. 141, Limitation Act, 1908-Controverslal point requiring serious consideration before forming definite opinion- Trial Court, held proper forum for adjudication of such matter- Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 91 & 141. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, r. 17 Amendment of plaint-Provision of r. 17 protects only that right which has already accrued to a party by lapse of time-Party merely entitled to raise a plea of limitation yet to be decided- Cannot be said to have been deprived of that right by allowing an amendment of plaint. Fatima v. Sardara P L D 1956 Lah. 474; Niaz Hussain v. Imdad Hussain P L D 1965 Lah. 172 ; Muthukumar v. Srivan arayana A I R 1933 Mad. 158 ; A I R 1921 P C 50 ; 57 I C 606 and 19 Q B D 394 ref. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, r. 17 Amendment of plaint-Amendment proposed neither changing cause of action nor any alternative case inconsistent with original plaint set up thereby-Case in initial stage and evidence yet to be adduced by parties-Such amendment cannot result in irreparable loss to defendant. Srirangan Chettiar v. Sornams Pillai A I R 1935 Mad. 202; Muthammal v. Gurusami A I R 1935 Mad. 158 ; Doraiswami v. Radhakrishna A I R 1938 Mad. 670 ; A I R 1921 P C 50 ref. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, r. 17 Amendment of plaint-Khasra number of property in dispute incorrectly given in plaint through oversight of scribe-Mere formal defect-Removal of such defect by amendment should be allowed. Fatima v. Sardara P L D 1956 Lah. 474 and Niaz Hussain v. Imdad Hussain P L D 1965 Lah. 172 ref. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, r. 17 Amendment of plaint-"Cause of action"-Definition-Relief' in suit whether for declaration or for possession, plaintiff has to prove same facts-Cause of action remains the same-Relief originally claimed that of possession-Amendment seeking addition of prayer for cancellation of sale-deed relating to property in dispute -Trial Court, held, was in error to refuse such…