Summary: S. 42 Specific Relief Act,O.VI R-17 CPC:Amendment in pleadings may be allowed at any stage of proceeding

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ----O. VI, R. 17—Amendment of pleadings—Scope, principles, and discretion—Court “may” allow amendments at any stage, but only such as are necessary to determine the real questions in controversy; discretion is guided by settled constraints: amendment must not change the nature of the suit/defence, withdraw an admission, be tainted by mala fides, or cause prejudice by depriving the opposite party of a benefit obtained from evidence already on record. (PLD 2013 SC 239—applied) (b) Amendment vs. clarification ----Foundational facts introduced for the first time—Where proposed “amendment” seeks to add a complete factual matrix (specific agreement date, named witnesses, time/place of transaction, instalment-wise payments with dates/amounts) absent from the original plaint and not spoken to by witnesses, it is not a mere clarification but an overhaul of the case—declined. (c) Delay and afterthought ----Delay per se not fatal; however, after a full trial, decision, appeal and remand—silence on pivotal facts throughout—coupled with a plea of “wrong legal advice”—supports inference of afterthought to fill lacunae—refused. (d) Evidence beyond pleadings ----Pleadings circumscribe proof—Refusal warranted where allowing new foundational averments at a late stage would permit evidence beyond the original case and prejudice the other side. (e) Partial permissibility ----Receipts for sale consideration already pleaded and on record—Limited amendment to align/clarify the existing “جز ب” regarding receipts is proper as it aids adjudication without altering nature of the suit—maintained. (f) Constitutional jurisdiction ----Art. 199—Supervisory review—No perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error shown in concurrent orders of the courts below refusing the substantive, late-stage overhaul—High Court will not substitute its discretion for that judiciously exercised below. (g) Disposition— Writ petition dismissed in limine; concurrent orders dated 03.05.2024 (Civil Judge) and 23.06.2025 (Additional District Judge) upheld; office directed to transmit copy to the trial court.

Summary: (a) Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) ----O. VI, R. 17—Amendment of pleadings—Principles—Scope—Amendment of written statement—Held, amendment may be permitted at any stage where necessary for determining the real question in controversy, but cannot be allowed to introduce new facts, change the nature of defence, or fill lacunas left earlier—Belated attempts made after substantial progress of trial are not maintainable—Reliance placed on Mst. Imam Hussain v. Sher Ali Shah (1994 SCMR 2293), Abdul Rashid v. Abdul Salam (1984 MLD 167), and Syed Muhammad Ali v. Syed Dabir Ali (2016 SCMR 2164). (b) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) ----S. 12-A—Expeditious disposal of family suits—Family Court required to conclude proceedings within six months of institution—Applications seeking amendment of pleadings at advanced stages frustrate the legislative intent of speedy adjudication and cannot be entertained absent compelling justification. (c) Family law—Amendment of written statement—Where defendant sought to introduce entirely new assertions after evidence had been partly recorded, such amendment would alter the nature of defence and prejudice the opposing party—Court rightly declined permission as the move appeared designed to delay proceedings and fill omissions in the earlier pleadings. (g) Disposition— Writ petition dismissed—Impugned order of Family Court dated 07.01.2025 upheld as well-reasoned and consistent with law—No illegality, irregularity, or violation of rights found.

Summary: "Though under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, Court can permit amendment in the pleadings but is not supposed to allow such an amendment which is beyond the basic documents executed amongst the parties." ---- (a) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—O.VI R.17 & O.XLI R.2—Scope of amendment—Limitations on altering contractual terms—Appellate review—Principles. Trial court allowed amendment in the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, expanding the scope of suit beyond the boundaries of the original agreement to sell (Ex.P-1). Such amendment went beyond mere pleading and effectively modified the underlying contractual terms, which is impermissible under the CPC. —Amendment of pleadings cannot extend to alteration of the foundational document (agreement to sell) itself. —Only parties to a contract can modify its terms through mutual consent; courts cannot do so unilaterally. Cited Cases: Muhammad Munir v. Umar Hayat (2023 SCMR 1339) Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza v. Member BOR (2014 SCMR 914) Messrs Essa Engineering Co. v. PTCL (2014 SCMR 922) Muhammad Iqbal v. Mehboob Alam (2015 SCMR 21) (b) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—O.XLI R.2—Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction—Relief not prayed for—Illegality. Appellate court partially allowed appeal of respondent No.1 and granted relief on a ground that had not been raised in the memo of appeal—such action violates Order XLI Rule 2 CPC. —Appellate court cannot go beyond the grounds set forth in the appeal without notice to the opposite party. —Violation of procedural fairness and right to be heard. Cited Cases: Amir Shah v. Ziarat Gul (1998 SCMR 593) Ch. Rab Nawaz v. Mst. Nasreen (2000 YLR 33) (c) Legal Maxims Applied: Secundum Allegata et Probata — Relief can only be granted on matters pleaded and proved. Audi Alteram Partem — Implied in appellate adjudication when new grounds are entertained without notice. (d) Revisional Jurisdiction—S.115 CPC—Scope—No jurisdictional defect found in appellate judgment. The appellate court rightly modified the ex parte decree granted by the trial court, which was based on an impermissible amendment that expanded the agreement’s scope beyond its original terms. No misreading, non-reading, or jurisdictional defect found warranting interference under Section 115 CPC. ----- Disposition: Civil Revision Dismissed. Judgment and decree of appellate court dated 24.04.2024 upheld. Trial court's decree beyond the terms of agreement rightly modified.

Summary: Though Order VI Rule 17 of CPC provides ample powers to the courts to allow amendments in pleadings, yet such powers should be used under certain limitations/conditions. (a) Amendment of Pleadings—Scope and Limitations: ----Amendment Application—Factors Considered by Courts—Petitioner sought amendment in plaint to challenge inheritance mutation and revenue orders issued prior to filing of suit for specific performance—Held, amendment may be allowed only if it does not introduce a new cause of action, prejudice the opposing party, or revive past transactions—Courts must balance procedural fairness with the rights of the opposing party—Reliance placed on Muhammad Ramzan v. Liaqat Ali (2001 SCMR 1984), Atta-ur-Rehman v. Abdur Rashid (2016 MLD 533), and Bashir Ahmed Anjum v. Muhammad Raffique (2021 SCMR 772). (b) Principles Governing Discretionary Power to Amend Pleadings: ----Finality of Judicial and Revenue Orders—Doctrine of Waiver—Petitioner was aware of mutation No.1131 and order dated 20.03.2017 but failed to challenge them at the time of filing the suit—Such omission constitutes waiver, precluding subsequent amendment—Further, amendment sought to convert suit from one of specific performance to declaration and cancellation, thereby altering the core cause of action—Reliance placed on Ijaz Mahmood v. Manzoor Hussain (1988 SCMR 34) and Abdur Rashid v. Muhammad Hanif (1994 SCMR 2035). (c) Procedural Deficiencies in Amendment Application: ----Amendment in Body of Plaint Without Amending Prayer Clause—Petitioner failed to amend the prayer clause, rendering the amendment ineffective—A valid amendment must specify the changes sought with precision and clarity—Court cannot allow vague, general amendments that waste judicial resources—Reference made to Matwali Khan v. Shah Zaman (PLD 1965 Azad J & K 26). (d) Findings and Disposition: ----No Justification for Amendment—Petition Dismissed—Petitioner failed to satisfy the legal conditions for amendment, including timeliness, consistency with original pleadings, and absence of prejudice to opposing party—As revenue orders had attained finality, amendment would revive a past and closed transaction, contrary to settled principles—Writ Petition dismissed with no order as to costs—Trial Court directed to expedite hearing of consolidated suits and conclude proceedings before May 2025. ----Petition dismissed. Orders of lower courts upheld.

Summary: ''Competency of the suit during the pendency of the previous. --- Section 26, Section 12 and Order II rules 2 of CPC" ---- (a) Civil Procedure – Second suit during pendency of previous suit – Effect – Order II Rule 2 CPC – Bar on splitting claims Under Order II Rule 2 CPC, a plaintiff must include all claims arising from a single cause of action in one suit, failing which, any omitted or relinquished claim cannot be raised in a subsequent suit. If a second suit is instituted during the pendency of an earlier suit based on the same cause of action, it is barred unless the plaintiff obtains the court’s permission – Held, the respondent’s second suit for recovery of earnest money was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC as it arose from the same agreement to sell that was the subject matter of the first suit for specific performance – Cited cases: Hashim Khan v. NBP (PLD 2001 SC 325), Mian Muhammad Iqbal v. Mir Mukhtar Hussain (1996 SCMR 1047), Kamila Aamir v. ADJ (PLD 2023 Lahore 601). (b) Civil Procedure – Bar under Section 12 CPC – Res judicata – Dismissal of first suit for non-prosecution – Effect on subsequent suit Under Section 12 CPC, a second suit on the same cause of action is barred if the plaintiff was precluded from bringing it due to prior proceedings – The first suit for specific performance was dismissed for non-prosecution, which, under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, operates as a decree, barring the institution of a fresh suit on the same cause of action – Held, the respondent was precluded from filing the second suit for recovery, as the claim could have been included in the first suit – Cited cases: Mian Muhammad Iqbal v. Mir Mukhtar Hussain (1996 SCMR 1047). (c) Civil Procedure – Amendment of pleadings – Rejection of amendment application – Effect The respondent had earlier filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the first suit to include a recovery claim, which was rejected and attained finality – Held, the respondent, having failed to challenge the rejection order, was barred from instituting a separate suit for recovery, as it would amount to circumventing the court’s previous decision – Cited case: Mubashar Javed v. Province of Punjab (PLD 2022 Lahore 817). (d) Civil Procedure – Parallel litigation – Institution of suit by DHA during pendency of a similar suit – Effect The DHA instituted a suit for specific performance despite a similar suit already pending – Under Section 10 CPC, which prohibits concurrent suits on substantially the same issues, the subsequent suit was barred – Held, allowing a party to institute multiple suits on the same cause of action would frustrate legal principles and lead to multiplicity of litigation – The second suit by DHA was also non-maintainable – Cited case: Ghulam Nabi v. Seth Muhammad Yaqub (PLD 1983 SC 344). Disposition: Civil Revision allowed – Impugned judgments set aside – Suit for recovery dismissed as barred by law – Second suit by DHA held non-maintainable – No order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976): ----Ss. 55, 62(3), 63 Election petition—Amendment in written reply—Scope and limitations—Respondent sought amendment in his written reply under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C., claiming inadvertence in omitting objections regarding non-compliance with Ss. 55 and 63 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976—Petitioner opposed the application, contending that S. 62(3) of the Act permits amendments in the election petition but not in the written reply—Held, Tribunal possesses discretion to allow amendments in pleadings if necessary to determine the real questions in controversy—However, mere inadvertence, defined as lack of care or attentiveness, does not constitute a valid legal ground—Amendments that alter the complexion of pleadings or introduce a different cause of action cannot be permitted—Application dismissed. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----O. VI, R. 17 Amendment of pleadings—Principles—Amendments are allowed to ensure a fair and effective trial but cannot introduce a new cause of action—Held, proposed amendments failed to establish necessity for determining the real questions in controversy—Allowing such amendments would amount to setting up a different defense—Application dismissed. (c) Interpretation of Statutes: Meaning of "inadvertence"—Lack of care, inattentiveness, or failure to act with due diligence—Mere inadvertence does not justify amendment of pleadings if it substantially alters the case—Reliance placed on PLD 1980 Lahore 495 and Black’s Law Dictionary. ----Cited Case: Sh. Alla Uddin v. Shahid Qayyum (E.P. No. 105 of 2002) Syed Akhlaque Hussain v. Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore (1977 SCMR 284) Ghulam Murtaza v. Muhammad Ilyas (PLD 1980 Lahore 495) Mst. Ghulam Bibi v. Sarsa Khan (PLD 1985 SC 345) ----Disposition: Application for amendment in written reply dismissed.

Summary: (a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act (1993 B.K.): ---S. 6—Pre-emption—Suit for possession—Amendment of plaint—Petitioner filed a suit for pre-emption under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act (1993 B.K.) claiming pre-emption over land sold to respondent—Petitioner sought to amend the plaint to include a prayer for possession—Trial Court rejected the amendment on the grounds of delay and accrued rights of the respondent—Held, that the suit for pre-emption inherently includes a suit for possession, and no new cause of action or valuable right has been created for the respondent by the proposed amendment—Order rejecting amendment set aside—Amendment allowed. ----Cited Cases: • 1980 CLC 1866 • PLD 1972 AJ&K 22 • PLD 1985 AJ&K 32 (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ---O. VI, R. 17—Amendment of plaint—Discretion of Court—Court may allow amendment at any stage in the interest of justice—Amendments that change the cause of action or deprive a party of a legal right accrued by lapse of time should not be allowed—In this case, the amendment does not change the nature of the suit or deprive the respondent of a legal right—Amendment allowed. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ---S. 115—Revision petition—Rejection of amendment by trial court—Revision petition allowed—Amendment permitted—No order as to costs. ----Disposition: Revision petition accepted. The petitioner is allowed to amend the plaint as per the application moved on October 6, 1985. No order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – Order VI, Rule 17: Amendment of pleadings—Scope and discretion of the Court Application for amendment in pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to include the word "declaration" in the heading of the plaint and challenge revenue orders and actions—Maintainability—Held, the power to allow amendments is discretionary and should be exercised liberally to serve the interests of justice, provided the amendment does not alter the nature or cause of action of the suit—Amendments necessary for determining the real issues in controversy are to be permitted, even if applied for at a belated stage, as long as mala fide intentions are not established and the rights of the opposing party are not unjustly affected. ----Cited Cases: Mst. Ghulam Bibi v. Sarsa Khan (PLD 1985 SC 345) Mst. Zubaida Bibi v. Mst. Hashmat Bibi (1993 SCMR 1882) Faisalabad Electric Supply Company Ltd. v. Munir Ahmad Ranjha (2020 CLC 68) Dausa v. Province of the Punjab (2016 SCMR 1621) (b) Administration of justice – Liberal approach towards amendments in pleadings: Amendment to include relief for declaration after half a decade of proceedings and closure of evidence—Objection raised by petitioner regarding mala fide intent and change of cause of action—Held, amendments that crystallize substantive issues without changing the fundamental character of the suit must be allowed, particularly where the amendment is based on the existing facts and no new cause of action is introduced—Courts are required to promote fair adjudication and avoid multiplicity of litigation. ----Cited Cases: Nazir Ahmad v. Sarfraz Ali (PLD 2013 Lahore 309) Muhammad Zaman v. Siraj-ul-Islam (2013 YLR 1548) Nizam Ullah v. Gohar Taja (2003 YLR 2008) (c) Limitation – Amendment after a lapse of time: Amendment sought after a significant lapse of time—Held, while courts should consider whether the amendment would prejudice accrued rights or is barred by limitation, the primary focus should remain on the necessity of the amendment for the resolution of real controversies—Factors such as avoidance of multiplicity of litigation and absence of injury to the opposing party are critical in exercising discretion to allow amendments. ----Cited Cases: L. J. Leach & Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner & Co. (AIR 1957 SC 357) Charan Das v. Amir Khan (AIR 1921 PC 50) (d) Discretion of the Court – Amendments to cure formal defects: Addition of the word "declaration" in the heading of the plaint and amendment to address actions contrary to a prior decree—Held, such amendments do not change the nature of the suit but cure formal defects and ensure justice—Courts must remain vigilant to prevent procedural errors from derailing substantive rights. ----Cited Cases: Ghulam Nabi v. Nazir Ahmad (1985 SCMR 824) Secretary to Govt. (West Pakistan) v. Abdul Kafil (PLD 1978 SC 264) ----Disposition: Writ petition dismissed. The amendments allowed by the trial court and upheld by the revisional court are affirmed. Trial court directed to conclude the case expeditiously within six months.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) –– ----O. III, R.1 & 2 – Special Attorney appearing as witness – Evidentiary value – Burden of proof in oral agreements – Requirements for proving oral contracts – Adverse inference due to non-appearance of plaintiff – Case based on an oral agreement to sell, where the plaintiff never appeared as a witness and instead, her husband, a lawyer, appeared as her special attorney and deposed in her favor – Held, the attorney-holder cannot depose for the principal regarding matters of which the principal alone had personal knowledge and was required to be cross-examined – Attorney’s deposition regarding an agreement allegedly concluded in his absence had no legal worth – Party relying on an oral agreement must plead and prove essential details such as date, time, place, and names of witnesses to substantiate the claim – Non-appearance of the plaintiff without a valid excuse warranted an adverse inference against her claim, particularly when no independent witnesses supported the agreement – Courts below misread and ignored the established legal principles regarding oral agreements and evidentiary value of statements given by an attorney. Cited Cases: • Faridullah Khan v. Masood Asghar Mian (2017 CLC 1736) • Muhammad Riaz and others v. Mst. Badshah Begum and others (2021 SCMR 605) • Moiz Abbas v. Mrs. Latifa and others (2019 SCMR 74) (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872) –– ----Ss. 2(b), 10, 11 & 12 – Oral agreements – Essential elements – Legal enforceability – Burden of proof – An oral contract, though permissible, must satisfy legal requirements under Ss. 2(b) and 10 of the Contract Act, 1872 – Held, oral agreements are susceptible to dishonest improvements in pleadings and evidence – Plaintiff must clearly establish the contract’s execution by fulfilling essential conditions such as the competency of parties, lawful consideration, and absence of voiding factors – A vague reference to the transaction’s location and missing details regarding negotiations in pleadings rendered the agreement doubtful – Mere possession of the disputed property did not validate the alleged sale, especially when no registered document or independent witness corroborated the claim – Courts below erroneously presumed the existence of a valid oral contract without applying the strict proof standards required for such agreements. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Nawaz through LRs v. Haji Muhammad Baran Khan through LRs and others (2013 SCMR 1300) • Ameer and another v. Mohabbata and another (2006 SCMR 690) (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) –– ----O. VI, R. 17 – Amendment of pleadings – Fundamental alteration of suit property description – Effect – Suit property initially described as measuring 5 Kanals in Khasra No. 3287 but later amended to 5 Kanals and 9 Marlas in Khasra Nos. 2565 and 2566 – Held, such a drastic change in description amounted to a material alteration of the claim, rendering the suit legally defective – Although the amendment was conceded by the petitioner’s counsel, the courts failed to consider the legal implications of the plaintiff shifting her claim after initiation of proceedings – Changes in property details, combined with delayed filing after 12 years, cast serious doubts on the legitimacy of the claim – Mere possession did not confer ownership rights when the plaintiff failed to prove the transaction’s original terms and location with clarity. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) –– ----Appointment of Local Commission – Procedural irregularities – Credibility of evidence – Held, the local commission’s report was flawed due to procedural lapses and its submission after an extended delay – Petitioner was not properly served before site visits, and commission’s findings conflicted with other witness testimonies – Contradictions regarding the nature and time of possession, along with the commission’s reliance on inconclusive evidence, rendered its findings unreliable – The Courts below erroneously placed reliance on an irregular local commission report, ignoring legal principles governing property disputes and specific performance claims. (e) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) –– ----Time-barred claim – Delayed suit for specific performance – Effect – Plaintiff filed suit 12 years after the alleged oral agreement, citing familial relations as the reason for inaction – Held, prolonged litigation between parties in partition and pre-emption suits negated the claim of trust-based delay – Delay in asserting rights weakened the claim, as suits for specific performance must be pursued diligently – Courts failed to appreciate the significance of undue delay in assessing the plaintiff’s bona fides, which further diminished the credibility of the claim. (f) Administration of justice –– ----Misreading of evidence – Reliance on weaknesses of defendant’s case – Held, a party must succeed on the strength of its own case and not the weakness of the opponent’s defense – Lower courts erred by granting relief based on minor discrepancies in the petitioner’s stance rather than the plaintiff’s independent proof – Preponderance of evidence principle requires courts to consider the overall credibility of the case rather than isolated weaknesses – Judgment of lower courts set aside, and suit dismissed due to lack of substantive evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claim. Disposition: Civil Revision allowed – Concurrent findings of lower courts set aside – Suit dismissed.