Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 732 2005 SLD 732 2005 SCMR 787
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions Nos.226 and 227-K of 1999, decision dated: 30-03-2005. (On appeal from the judgment dated 9-2-1999 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, passed in H.C.As. Nos. 52 and 53 of 1989).
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J., JAVED IQBAL AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, 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

Syed NAZIR HUSSAIN RIZVI

VS

ZAHOOR AHMAD and another Syed NAZIR HUSSAIN RIZVI vs ZAHOOR AHMAD and another

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------O. VI, R.17---Amendment of pleadings---Criterion.The proposed amendment can neither change the complexion of the suit nor introduce a new cause of action. No amendment will be allowed where its effect would be to convert the character of the suit. The fundamental character of the suit including the subject-matter and cause of action cannot be allowed to be substituted. Subject to certain exceptions "even alternative and inconsistent Pleas may be allowed to be raised by way of amendment". A new ground of claim can be introduced because merely introduction of fresh matter cannot alter the nature of the suit and leave ought not be refused in such cases. A line of distinction is to be drawn between `an alternative case' and `an inconsistent case' which are neither synonymous nor interchangeable. No two facts can be said to be inconsistent if both could have happened and the test of inconsistency is that a plaint which contains both cannot be verified as true but a party can, put forward more than one source of his right or defence in which case he is pleading in the alternative. An alternative or inconsistent plea can be raised but contradictory and mutually destructive pleas cannot be taken. Shahsawar v. Najamul Hassan 1981 SCMR 730; Khudeja v. Jehangir Khan 1971 SCMR 395; Atlantic Steamer's Supply Co. v. m.v. Titisee PLD 1993 SC 88; Ghulam Bibi v. Sarsa Khan PLD 1985 SC 345; Ghulab v. Fazal Ilahi PLD 1955 Lah. 26; Ghulamali v. Pakistan PLD 1960 Kar. 581; Alauddin v. Central Exchange Bank Limited PLD 1060 Lah. 446;Muhammad Essa v. Haseena Begum 1989 SCMR 476 and Budho v. Ghulam Shah PLD 1963 SC 553 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----- ----O. VI, R.17 & O. XXXVII, R.2---Amendment of pleadings---Suit for recovery of money 'on the basis of promissory note---Plaintiff, in the present case, in fact wanted through amendment of pleadings to pray that in case the decree on the basis of promissory note was not granted by way of summary procedure, the suit may be treated as an ordinary suit and decree be awarded subject to merit by following the ordinary procedure---Validity---Proposed amendment could not be considered…
🔒
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