| Decision |
The Peshawar High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the impugned orders that had dismissed the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint. The court held that the amendment did not alter the nature of the suit and was intended to add a prayer based on the newly discovered agreement dated February 6, 2012. It was noted that the plaintiffs acted in good faith and the amendment introduced fresh matter without changing the cause of action. Therefore, the court permitted the amendment under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, allowing the plaintiff to include a reference to the agreement. The impugned orders were set aside, and the revision petition was allowed without any order as to costs. |
| Summary |
In the case of Fazal Subhan and Another versus Chamnay and Another, adjudicated by the Peshawar High Court on April 25, 2017, the court addressed the issue of amending the plaint under the Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), specifically Section 17. The petitioners sought to amend their plaint to include a new prayer based on an agreement dated February 6, 2012, which they claimed was discovered during the pendency of the suit. This agreement was pivotal in asserting their right of pre-emption related to the land transactions involving Khatta/Khatooni No. 579/871 and Khasra Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 situated within Mauza Kanju Tehsil Kabal District Swat.
The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing that it introduced a new cause of action and altered the nature of the suit, thereby justifying the dismissal of the application to amend. They contended that the amendment was intended to cover loopholes and was presented belatedly, suggesting mala fide intent. The trial court upheld this stance, dismissing the application on the grounds that it was outside the scope of merits. However, upon appeal in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 7/14 of 2016, the appellate court maintained the trial court's decision.
The petitioners then filed a revision petition, which brought the matter before the Peshawar High Court for reconsideration. The High Court meticulously analyzed the intentions behind the amendment, emphasizing that it did not alter the fundamental nature of the suit but merely added a reference to the newly discovered agreement to strengthen their claim. The court highlighted that the plaintiffs acted in good faith and that the amendment aimed to clarify and substantiate their cause of action without introducing any fresh matter that would change the case's core dispute.
Under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court has the discretion to allow amendments to pleadings to resolve the real questions in controversy between the parties. The High Court found that the amendment sought to insert a specific prayer regarding the agreement without deviating from the original cause of action. This strategic amendment was seen as necessary for a comprehensive understanding of the case, ensuring that all pertinent facts and agreements were duly considered.
Consequently, the Peshawar High Court set aside the impugned orders of the lower courts, permitting the plaintiffs to amend their plaint. The revision petition was allowed, and the case was directed to proceed with the amended plaint. This decision underscores the judiciary's role in facilitating justice by allowing necessary modifications to pleadings that enhance the clarity and completeness of the case, provided they do not distort the original nature of the dispute. The court's ruling serves as a precedent for future cases where amendments are sought to include newly discovered evidence or agreements that are crucial to the case's resolution. |