| Case ID |
378d4064-e518-4094-ab17-5337d7d9b082 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Revision No. 104 of 1993 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 27, 1996 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, affirming the trial court's decision to reject the petitioner's application for amendment of the written statement. The court held that the proposed amendments would introduce a new case and were contradictory to the defense already presented. The court emphasized the need for amendments to be bona fide and not to displace the existing defense. Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner could not challenge the transfer of land which was a matter between the respondents and the Rawalpindi Improvement Trust. The decision underscored the reluctance of courts to allow amendments that substantially alter the nature of the defense and reiterated the importance of maintaining consistency in pleadings. |
| Summary |
In the case of Civil Revision No. 104 of 1993, the Lahore High Court examined the rejection of a petitioner's application to amend his written statement in a civil suit. The court reviewed the circumstances under which amendments to pleadings are permissible under the Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), particularly focusing on Order VI, Rule 17. The petitioner sought to introduce a plea of fraud concerning the transfer of land, which was determined to be a new case that contradicted his original defense. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, highlighting that amendments must be bona fide and should not change the fundamental nature of the defense. The court concluded that the proposed amendment would be impermissible as it sought to introduce a new cause of action that was inconsistent with the original claim. This case serves as a critical reference for understanding the limitations on amending pleadings in civil proceedings, emphasizing the need for clarity and consistency in legal arguments. The ruling is significant for legal practitioners as it reinforces the principle that once a defense is established, it cannot be easily altered to introduce contradictory claims. Legal representatives must therefore exercise caution in drafting pleadings, ensuring that all claims are coherent and consistent with the established facts of the case. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J
|
| Lawyers |
Habibul Wahhabul Elkheiri,
Mirza Anwar Baig
|
| Petitioners |
TARIQ MEHMOOD NIAZI
|
| Respondents |
NADEEM AFZAL,
another Respondent
|
| Citations |
1996 SLD 1392,
1996 PLD 429
|
| Other Citations |
Mt. Kanta Devi v. Sm. Kalawati and others AIR 1946 Lah. 419,
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham and others AIR 1965 SC 1008,
Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others v. Sarsa Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 345,
Kanda and others v. Waghu PLD 1949 PC 270,
Mst. Khudeja v. Jehangir Khan and 37 others 1991 SCMR 395,
Gulab and another v. Fazal Elahi PLD 1955 Lah. 26
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
Order VI, Rule 17,
Section 115,
Section 137
|