Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 3220 = 1981 SLD 3220 = 1981 SCMR 730
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 318 of 1980, decided on 31st March, 1980. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 26th February, 1980 in F. A. O. No. 103 of 1973).
Presented By: Karam Elahee Chauhan and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ
M. A. Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advo cate-on-Record for Petitioner. Kh. Tufail, Advocate Supreme Court and Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on- Record for
Respondents.

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 318 of 1980, decided on 31st March, 1980. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 26th February, 1980 in F. A. O. No. 103 of 1973).

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section:  O. VI, r. 17

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)  O. VI, r. 17-Plaint, amendment of-Plaint, held, cannot be allowed to be amended at a late stage particularly when amend ment sought likely to change whole complexion of case on which suit earlier filed and tried. Date of hearing: 31st March, 1980.                                                                                                                                                          ORDER KARAM ELAHBEE CHAUHAN, J.-Shabsawar (deceased) (now represented by his legal representative) (hereinafter called the plaintiffs) filed a suit for possession of 11/16 share in the land described in the plaint and also share in the compensation amount of Rs. 58,000 which had been received by Syed Najamul Hassan defendant /respondent for compulsory acquisition of a part of this land by CDA/CVD. The entitlement for the above claim was based on the ground that the plaintiffs were entitled to share in the inheritance of the various propositus mentioned therein. 2. The suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 6th March, 1971, on the ground the relevant successions in this case were to be governed by Shia Law, whereunder in the presence of daughter of Ahmad Shah the plaintiffs who were far more "distant kindred" had no right to succeed. 3. The plaintiffs/petitioners filed an appeal which came up for adjudication before the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi. Probably feeling difficulty in crossing the finding aforesaid of the learned Civil Judge, the plaintiffs/petitioners filed an application before the learned Additional District Judge for amendment of their plaint under Order VI, rule 17 read with section 107 C. P. C. seeking permission try to now plead that Mst. Janat Bibi was not the daughter of Ahmad Shah. The learned…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register