Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 570 1989 SLD 570 1989 SCMR 476 1989 SLD 1126 1989 SCMR 476
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.222-K of 1987, decision dated: 15-09-1988
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH AND SHAFIUR RAHMAN, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MUHAMMAD ESSA

VS

Mst. HASEENA BEGUM through Legal Heirs

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--O.1, R.9 & O.VI, R.17--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Plaint, amendment of--Non-joinder of necessary party, effect of--Subject-matter of the suit may be enlarged if proposed amendment is allowed, but the nature of the suit would remain just the same--Prayer for amendment requiring serious consideration--Where addition of necessary parties which were to be affected if amendment was allowed, was not prayed for, absence of such prayer in application for amendment, held, was fatal--Petitioner can, however, seek any lawful amendment in the plaint which he could justify on disclosing full text of the amendment and the names of the parties against whom such amendment was directed. Samiuddin Sami, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate-­on-Record (absent) for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 15th September, 1988. JUDGMENT SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner, a plaintiff in a pending Civil Suit on the original side in the High Court, seeks leave to appeal whereby his application seeking amendment of the plaint was rejected by the learned Judge in Chamber and his Appeal against such rejection was dismissed by the Appeal Bench on 14-4-1987. The petitioner claimed to be the legal owner/allottee of Plot No.123, Sector 6/E Sajidabad, Orangi Town, Karachi. He alleged that he had raised construction and a portion of the property, constructed had been given over to Mst. Haseena Begum, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, for her temporary occupation as a licensee. On her refusal to hand over the possession of that portion he instituted a Civil Suit for possession and mesne profits. While that suit was pending, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents instituted a suit on the original side of the High Court challenging the allotment of the plot to the petitioner and claiming it for herself. The Civil Suit filed by the petitioner was transferred to the original side of the High Court and two suits were consolidated. The petitioner moved an application under Order VI, Rule 17 seeking amendment of the plaint. What was sought to be pleaded by the proposed amendment was the introduction…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492