Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----O. XXIII, R.1---Withdrawal of suit---Withdrawal with permission to file fresh suit---Effect on earlier judgment and decree---Plaintiff’s right to abandon suit---Court’s discretion to grant permission for fresh suit---Held, that under O.XXIII, R.1, CPC, a plaintiff may withdraw his suit or abandon part of his claim, but if such withdrawal is without permission under sub-rule (2), he is precluded from instituting a fresh suit on the same subject-matter---Where permission is granted under sub-rule (2), the withdrawal protects the plaintiff from the restrictive consequences of O.II, R.2 and S.11, CPC---Grant of such permission is not a matter of right but a judicial discretion to be exercised only where the suit must fail by reason of a formal defect or where other sufficient grounds exist for allowing a fresh suit---When a suit is withdrawn with permission to institute a fresh suit, parties are placed in the same legal position as if the original suit had never been filed. Cited Cases: • Balida Kamayya and others v. Paragada Papayya and another AIR 1918 Mad. 1287 • Behari Lal Pal v. Srimati Baran Mai Dasi 1894 ILR 17 All 53 • Becharam Chowdhuri and others v. Purna Chandra Chatterji and others AIR 1925 Cal. 845 • Baisnab Das Mohanta v. Nani Gopal Das and others PLD 1963 Dacca 504 (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----O. XXIII, R.1---Withdrawal of suit at appellate stage---Permission to file fresh suit---Effect on decrees already passed---Judicial caution---Held, that an application under O.XXIII, R.1(2), CPC, especially when made at appellate or second appellate stage, requires strict judicial scrutiny---If permission is granted at such stage, it may enable an unsuccessful plaintiff to avoid adverse decrees already rendered against him and may deprive the contesting defendant of rights accrued through adjudication by courts below---Court must consider all relevant factors, including the effect of allowing a party to re-agitate the same dispute and the wastage of public judicial time---Backlog of cases and delay in disposal of litigation further require appellate courts to exercise such discretion with care and restraint. Cited Case: • Mrs. Afroz Shah and others v. Sabir Qureshi and others PLD 2010 SC 913 (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----O. XXIII, R.1---Withdrawal order with permission to file fresh suit---Finality of unchallenged order---Collateral attack---Subsequent proceedings---Held, that once a competent Court grants permission to withdraw a civil suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit, such order remains binding unless set aside in appeal, revision or other lawful direct proceedings---Court seized of a subsequent suit cannot examine whether the earlier permission was rightly or wrongly granted---Such order cannot be challenged collaterally in proceedings not intended to reverse, modify or annul it---Where the appellants did not challenge the withdrawal order through proper procedure, they could not later question its validity in subsequent proceedings. Cited Cases: • Garland v. Consumers’ Gas Co. 2004 1 SCR 629 • Raj Kumar Mahto v. Ram Khelawan Singh AIR 1922 Pat. 44 • Haridey Nath Roy v. Ramchandra AIR 1921 Cal. 34 • R v. Wilson 1983 2 SCR 594 • Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. 2001 2 SCR 460 (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----O. XXIII, R.1---Declaratory suit based on earlier decree---Earlier suit withdrawn with permission to file fresh suit---Effect of withdrawal on earlier decree---Held, that where the first suit had been withdrawn with permission to institute a fresh suit, the judgment and decree previously passed in that first suit ceased to have operative legal value for founding a subsequent claim---Such judgment and decree became ineffective and could not be used as the basis for declaration of title---Appellants’ claim in the second suit was based solely on the earlier judgment and decree dated 26.02.1998, but after withdrawal of the first suit, that decree no longer furnished any foundation for claiming ownership---Courts below were justified in dismissing the declaratory suit. (e) Precedent---- ----Leave-refusing order---Applicability of precedent---Decision to be read in context of its own facts---Held, that every judicial opinion must be understood in relation to the facts established or assumed in that case---Broad observations in a judgment are not to be treated as complete expositions of law divorced from their context---A case is authority only for what it actually decides---Precedent of Haji Muhammad Boota was distinguishable because in that case the Supreme Court had itself permitted withdrawal and later revisited the withdrawal order due to indications of misrepresentation and possible fraudulent acquisition of escheated land---In the present case, withdrawal was allowed by the First Appellate Court and the appellants never challenged such order before any forum at the proper time---Reliance on Haji Muhammad Boota was therefore misplaced. Cited Cases: • Haji Muhammad Boota and others v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others PLD 2003 SC 979 • Quinn v. Leathern 1901 AC 495 • Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Muhammad Saleem 1994 SCMR 2213 • Muhammad Shakeel and others v. Additional District Judge and others PLD 2025 SC 572 (f) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----O. VI, R.17---Amendment of plaint---Declaratory suit---Change in character of claim---Request for remand to amend plaint and prove independent title---Held, that although the proposed amended suit would still remain one for declaration, the character of the appellants’ claim would materially change because the original plaint was founded solely on the earlier judgment and decree---Amendment which changes the character of the original claim is not permissible under O.VI, R.17, CPC---Appellants had not produced any foundational material or supplementary documents showing that they could establish title independently of the earlier decree---Remanding the matter merely on counsel’s assertion would serve no practical purpose and would create unnecessary litigation. Cited Cases: • Alokeshi Banik v. Aftabuddin PLD 1963 Dacca 87 • Syed Muhammad Ali and others v. Syed Dabir Ali and others 2016 SCMR 2164 (g) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---- ----Declaratory suit---Declaration of title---Burden to establish independent legal foundation---Earlier ineffective decree relied upon as sole basis of title---Held, that a plaintiff seeking declaration of ownership must establish a valid legal foundation for such title---Where the only foundation pleaded was an earlier judgment and decree which had become ineffective due to withdrawal of the suit with permission to file fresh proceedings, no declaration of title could be granted---In absence of any other evidence or documentation proving ownership of the disputed land, appellants were rightly non-suited. Disposition: Appeal was dismissed with costs throughout; judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, maintaining dismissal of appellants’ declaratory suit, was upheld.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – O. VI, R. 17 – Amendment of Pleadings – Principles for Grant or Refusal – Inordinate Delay and Prejudice to Opponent Held, although courts have wide discretion under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to allow amendments at any stage of proceedings, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and not where the amendment is sought with mala fide intent, causes prejudice to the other party, or alters the nature of the suit—Amendment application filed after nearly ten years, without plausible explanation, to insert a key factual assertion regarding the place of an alleged oral agreement, was rightly refused—Such belated insertion, if allowed, would disturb the litigation landscape, prejudice the opposing party, and potentially shift the entire factual framework—Delay, while not always fatal, becomes determinative when used tactically to rectify weaknesses in pleadings or overcome evidentiary obstacles—Petitioner’s conduct did not merit equitable relief—Court reaffirmed that diligence and bona fides are essential for invoking O. VI, R. 17 CPC. [Cited: PLD 2013 SC 239, PLD 2003 SC 688, 2003 SCMR 542, PLD 1985 SC 345, 2015 SCMR 1698, PLD 1978 SC 242, PLD 2001 SC 518, 2016 SCMR 1621] (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – O. VI, R. 17 – Amendment Introducing New Fact – Legal Threshold and Bona Fides Held, the proposed amendment sought to insert a new fact regarding the location of the oral agreement forming the basis of a suit for specific performance—Such insertion, being central to the dispute, could not be treated as a mere clarification or typographical correction—Court distinguished cases allowing amendment to correct accidental errors or formal omissions—Amendments that impact the root of the controversy require heightened scrutiny—Mere procedural permissibility does not override substantive fairness. [Cited: PLD 2001 SC 518, 2016 SCMR 1621] (c) Civil Law – Amendment of Pleadings – Equitable Relief – Litigant Conduct Held, the petitioners’ consistent delays, repeated adjournments, and failure to lead evidence over a decade showed lack of diligence and a pattern of procedural abuse—Amendment brought at such stage was deemed tactical and aimed at reshaping the factual matrix—Such conduct disentitles a party from equitable relief under procedural law—Court emphasized that fairness, integrity of proceedings, and prejudice to the other side must guide decisions under O. VI, R. 17 CPC. Disposition: Leave to appeal refused—Petition dismissed—Judgment of Lahore High Court dated 11.03.2025, disallowing the amendment and restoring trial court’s dismissal order, upheld. Cited Authorities: Ghulam Nabi v. Sardar Nazir Ahmed (1985 SCMR 824) Muhammad Akram v. Altaf Ahmad (PLD 2003 SC 688) Abaid Ullah Malik v. ADJ, Mianwali (PLD 2013 SC 239) Mst. Noor Khatoon v. Muhammad Shafi (2003 SCMR 542) Mst. Ghulam Bibi v. Sarsa Khan (PLD 1985 SC 345) Secretary Govt. of West Pakistan v. Kazi Abdul Kafil (PLD 1978 SC 242) Sardar Naseem Khan v. Returning Officer (2015 SCMR 1698) Qamar-ud-Din v. Muhammad Din (PLD 2001 SC 518) Dausa v. Province of the Punjab (2016 SCMR 1621)

Summary: (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001----S. 9---Suit for recovery of finance---Liability of partners and guarantors---Determination of outstanding amount---Scope---Plaintiff Bank instituted suit under S. 9 of the Ordinance for recovery of Rs.118,998,622.14/- along with markup, costs, and cost of funds due to default on financial facilities extended to Defendant No.1 (a partnership firm)---Defendants contested liability, arguing that certain partners had been wrongly impleaded and that the Plaintiff Bank’s claims included unauthorized markup beyond facility expiry---Held, that Defendants No. 4 and 5 had executed personal guarantees securing the liabilities of Defendant No.1 and its associated entities---Letter relied upon by Defendants to claim waiver of guarantee conditions (dated 02.02.2011) was never acted upon and did not absolve them from liability---Supreme Court precedent established that an unimplemented variation in contract terms does not release guarantors from original liability---Amount recoverable limited to Rs.82,088,376/- after deduction of excess markup charged beyond facility expiry.Cited Cases:• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan v. Hyderabad Beverage Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. 2016 SCMR 451• Mian Aftab A. Sheikh v. Messrs Trust Leasing Corp. Ltd. 2003 CLD 702(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----O. VI, R. 17---Amendment of pleadings---Scope in financial litigation---Defendant sought amendment in application for leave to defend (PLA), introducing new evidence regarding waiver of guarantee conditions by the Plaintiff Bank---Held, that amendments which supplement rather than contradict original pleadings can be allowed under O. VI, R. 17, CPC, even in financial suits under the Ordinance---Amendment allowed to place relevant letters on record, but no substantive relief granted as waiver was never acted upon.Cited Cases:• Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. v. Messrs Bela Automotives Ltd. 2010 CLD 1243• Messrs Maroof Knitwear (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. 2003 CLD 1610(c) Banking Law---Pledged Stock and Fiduciary Duty----Obligation of borrower to manage pledged assets---Effect of expired stock---Defendants argued that Plaintiff Bank was responsible for expiry of pledged pesticide stock, causing financial losses---Held, that in pledge transactions, the creditor holds only constructive possession while the borrower maintains physical custody and operational control---Defendants failed to replace expired stock despite Bank’s requests, eroding its value and leading to default---Plaintiff Bank justified in initiating criminal proceedings against Defendants for mismanagement and fraud.Cited Cases:• World Trans Logistics v. Silk Bank Ltd. 2016 SCMR 800• Habib Metropolitan Bank Ltd. v. Nazir Rice Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. 2020 CLD 796(d) Banking Law---Financial Default and Execution of Decree----S. 19, Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Automatic conversion of decree into execution---Failure to pay decreed amount within thirty days results in execution under S. 19(1) of the Ordinance without requiring a separate execution petition---Court granted decree for Rs.82,088,376/- against Defendants jointly and severally, with costs of suit and cost of funds from date of default (31.07.2011) till realization---Defendants’ liability affirmed based on financial documents and admissions in pleadings---Decree to automatically stand converted into execution proceedings if unpaid.Cited Cases:• Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. v. Messrs Bela Automotives Ltd. 2010 CLD 1243Disposition: Suit decreed in favor of Plaintiff Bank for Rs.82,088,376/- with costs and cost of funds; decree to convert into execution if unpaid within 30 days.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VI, R. 17---Amendment of pleadings---Principles---Suit for permanent injunction---Subsequent application for amendment to include declaration and challenge to revenue orders---Maintainability---Petitioner sought amendment in the suit after closure of evidence--- Upon acceptance of the application by the Trial Court, respondents filed civil revision, which was dismissed---Contention of the petitioner was that the proposed amendment would introduce a new cause of action and change the whole complexion of the suit---Validity---High Court after analyzing various decisions highlighted some important factors, which were only illustrative and not exhaustive, that could be kept in consideration while dealing with the application for amendment; they were (i) the intention of the applicant seeking to amend pleadings; (ii) the question of limitation if applicable; (iii) refusal or acceptance of amendment should not lead to injustice or injury to opponent side; (iv) efforts should be made to avoid multiplicity of litigation; (v) the nature of the suit and cause of action originally set-up, and (vi) if the amendment is necessary for the purpose of determination of the real question in controversy between the parties provided subject matter of suit remains unchanged---Predecessor-in-interest of respondents essentially sought relief that as per mutation he was the owner of the disputed property and the earlier round of litigation initiated in the year 1970, which culminated into passing of a decree, which was not considered by the revenue authorities---Amendment as to addition of word "declaration" in the heading of the amended suit, which was already dealt with in detail, the proposed amendments related to those orders or proceedings of the revenue which were allegedly in defiance of the decree already passed and that hardly had any bearing on the subject matter or the nature of the plaint---High Court held that two courts below had not erred in accepting the application for amendment in the plaint and upheld the decisions of the lower courts---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Mst. Imam Hussain v. Sher Ali Shah and others 1994 SCMR 2293; Mst. Noor Khatoon through Legal Heirs and another v. Muhammad Shafi 2003 SCMR 542; Atlantic Steamer's Supply Company v. M V. Titisee and others PLD 1993 SC 88; Ghulam Haider v. Muhammad Ayub 2001 SCMR 133; Faisalabad Electric Supply Company Limited v. Munir Ahmad Ranjha and others 2020 CLC 68 and Gulzar Ahmad v. Additional District Judge and others 2019 CLC 1432. ref. Iftikhar Ahmad v. Muhammad Anwar and others 2024 CLC 1735; Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others v. Sarsa Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 345; Mst Zubaida Bibi v. Mst. Hashmat Bibi and 2 others 1993 SCMR 1882; Nizam Ullah v. Mst. Gohar Taja and others 2003 YLR 2008; Muhammad Zaman v. Siraj-ul-Islam and 11 others 2013 YLR 1548; Syed Akhlaque Hussain and another v. Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore 1977 SCMR 284; L. J Leach and Co. Ltd. and another v. Messrs Jardine Skinner and Co. (S) AIR 1957 SC 357; Dausa and others v. Province of the Punjab and others 2016 SCMR 1621 and Nazir Ahmad and another v. Sarfraz Ali and 2 others PLD 2013 Lahore 309 rel. Malik Javaid Akhtar Wains and M. Imran Shahzad Bhatti for Petitioner. M. Tariq Mahmood Dogar for Respondents Nos. 3(i) to 3(v). Date of hearing: 11th December, 2024

Summary: Law does not impose a time limit for filing applications under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC, allowing parties to amend pleadings at any stage to determine the real issues in dispute. Legal precedent, such as "Mst. Ghulam Bibi vs. Sarsa Khan" confirms the broad interpretation of "proceedings" to include appellate stages, permitting amendments even up to the Supreme Court --- Despite this precedent, the Trial Court in the present case dismissed an amendment application citing delay, though evidence hadn't been recorded yet --- Previous judgments, including "Ahmad Bakhsh vs. Imam Bakhsh" support the notion of allowing amendments even in later stages of proceedings - -- Hence, the Trial Court's consideration of delay as a ground for dismissal contradicts established legal principles allowing for amendments at any stage of proceedings under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC. ---- Background: The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging an order by the Civil Judge, West-Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner’s application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for amendments in the pleadings. The property in question, which cannot be partitioned, was the subject of various agreements between the petitioner and the legal heirs (Respondents 2-8). Although a compromise was reached among the heirs through a Consent Decree and Compromise Deed, disputes arose when some respondents allegedly failed to fulfill their obligations to transfer shares to the petitioner as agreed. ------ Issues: ------ 1) Whether the proposed amendments would fundamentally alter the cause of action or the nature of the suit. ------ 2) Whether the amendments were permissible under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC, despite the delay in filing. ------ 3) Whether the petitioner's claims against all legal heirs could be addressed in a single suit without additional litigation. ------ 4) Whether Order II, Rule 2, CPC bars the petitioner from introducing amendments that relate to claims from the original cause of action. ------ Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court allowed the petition and set aside the Civil Judge’s order. Key findings included: Amendments and Cause of Action: The amendments do not change the primary cause of action or the nature of the suit. They merely amplify the existing claims, introducing the Compromise Deed and agreements between the petitioner and additional respondents. Timeliness and Purpose of Amendments: The court acknowledged that Order VI, Rule 17, CPC allows amendments at any stage to clarify real questions in controversy. Delay alone was insufficient to deny the amendments, particularly when they were essential to resolving all disputes in one suit. Joinder of Claims to Prevent Multiplicity of Proceedings: The court emphasized the need to avoid multiple proceedings. Given that the property is indivisible, all claims and related agreements could be consolidated within this single suit. Order II, Rule 2, CPC Compliance: The court found that Order II, Rule 2 does not prevent the petitioner from seeking omitted reliefs within the same ongoing suit, as opposed to a successive suit. The court granted the amendments, directing the petitioner to file an updated Plaint, with respondents allowed to amend their Written Statements if necessary. ------ Citations/Precedents: Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry vs. Civil Judge and others, 2020 CLC 291 Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others vs. Sarsa Khan and others, PLD 1985 SC 345 (addressing broad discretion for amendments under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC) C.A. Waheed vs. Aftab Ahmad Mian and another, PLD 2006 Lahore 68 Alam Khan and others vs. Pir Ghulam Nabi Shah and Company, 1992 SCMR 2375 (emphasizing the preference for consolidating claims within one suit) Begum Shaheen Hassan vs. Messrs Grindlays Bank, 1992 MLD 1972

Summary: Section(s) of law: Order VI, R.17, CPC.1.The circumstance of the case elaborates the established legal amendment in pleading--- the court may at any stage of the proceeding allow either party to alter or amend his/her pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between.2.In light of the case law on amendment in pleadings cited in the case in hand, the following key points could be deduced:i.The words at any stage of the proceeding may be given liberal interpretation, to include higher for a, including Supreme Court.ii. A proposed amendment must be shown as essential for determination of the real question in the case.iii.Once the court finds that amendment is necessary for the purpose of the real question in the controversy, it becomes obligation on it to allow amendment.iv.A proposed necessary amendment shall not change the nature of the suit so as to introduced a new cause of action.v.It is but natural that an amendment tends to cause inconvenience to the opposite party. Hence, it may be allowed on just and appropriate costs to the opposite party.vi.The nature of the suit is not being changed by an amendment the question of limitation would emerge as a form rather than of substance.vii.Amendment, allowed or refused, goes to the roots of a party`s case, as such, highly likely to imperial the party`s genuine case.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.XXIII, Rr.1 & 2---"Formal defect" and "sufficient reason"---Scope---Suit fordeclaration and permanent injunction---Petitioner running a school had challengedconstruction of shops on the land adjacent to his school---Written statement was submittedby defendants---Petitioner filed application for withdrawal of plaint which was accepted byTrial Court but dismissed by appellate Court---Validity---No formal defect was pointed outby Trial Court in the suit filed by plaintiff/petitioner---Before allowing withdrawal ofapplication, satisfaction of Court regarding formal defect/other sufficient grounds wasnecessary---Local commission was appointed who had submitted report before suchapplication from plaintiff---Allowing application would cause harm/prejudice todefendants/respondents and would put them in disadvantageous position---Application wassilent as to any justification/reasons or formal defect which ought to be removed by filingsuit afresh and were not possible to be introduced by way of amendment---Petitioner'sapplication for amendment in plaint had already been dismissed by trial Court---Revisionpetition was dismissed accordingly.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.XXIII, Rr. 1 & 2---Withdrawal of suit with permission to institute fresh suit---Privilege---"Sufficient grounds"---Scope---Plaintiff had absolute privilege/prerogative towithdraw his suit and /or abandon his claim/part thereof against all/any of defendants at anystage of proceeding---Where Plaintiff had exercised such privilege, he would be precludedfrom instituting new suit on basis of same cause of action qua same subject matter againstsame defendant---Sub-rule (2) was exception to sub-rules (1) and (3) that plaintiff would beobliged to seek permission of Court if he wanted to file new suit after withdrawal of the firstsuit---Such permission of Court should not be granted as a matter of right/course/routine---Conscious of Court should be satisfied that if permission was not given, the suit would failon account of any formal defect---Other sufficient grounds were also there for allowingwithdrawal of suit with permission to institute fresh suit---No hard and fast criteria could belaid down in respect of "sufficient grounds"---Plaintiff must elucidate/explain to Court thereason(s) for such withdrawal justifying the permission of Court---Court was duty-bound to advert to reasons propounded by plaintiff and to pass speaking order assigning reasons for itsconclusion meeting the objective requirement of rule of 'satisfaction'---Order must spell outthe objectivity test of satisfaction, so that the same could be gauged/judged that request ofplaintiff for withdrawal was not tainted with oblique/mala fide motive; was not meant tocause harm/prejudice to defendant and put him in disadvantageous position; not motivated tomisuse the authority of Court and abuse the process of law.Muhammad Yar through L.Rs and others v. Muhammad Amin through L.Rs andothers 2013 SCMR 464; Haji Muhammad Boota and others PLD 2003 SC 979 and SalmaKhalil and three others v. Rashida Siddique and another 2000 CLC 260 rel.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.VI, R.17---Amendment in plaint---Principle---Plaintiff/respondent sought amendmentin plaint which was declined by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court allowed the same---Validity---Only rider was that party could not be allowed to substitute a new cause of actionor introduce a cause of action distinct from the one which was basis of suit and such was notsituation of plaintiff/respondent--- Suit property belonged to forefathers of parties anddefendants/petitioners were sons of plaintiff/respondent who were so-called legal heirs oftheir grandfather---Plaintiff/respondent was not in possession therefore, he should haveprayed or relief in plaint---Such defect was pointed out in written statement thatplaintiff/respondent was out of possession, therefore, amendment in prayer clause was madeso as to insert relief of possession---Addition of relief of declaration and possession in suitdid not in any manner changed character of the suit nor introduced any new cause of action---High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Lower Appellate Court in exercise of itsrevisional jurisdiction---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.Nazir Hussain Rizvi v. Zahoor Ahmed PLD 2005 SC 787 rel.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court challenging the decision of the District Judge Kotli and Civil Judge Khuiratta. The case originated from a suit filed by the petitioner seeking possession based on the right of prior purchase regarding land in village Bayal Tehsil Khuiratta. During the suit, the petitioner submitted an application for amendment in the plaint, which was rejected by the Civil Judge on May 31, 2017. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the District Judge Kotli, which was also dismissed on April 7, 2018. The petitioner then challenged the order in the High Court, which dismissed the writ petition on January 20, 2020. ----Issues: 1- Whether there is a limitation for filing an application for amendment in pleadings under Order VI Rule 17. 2- Whether the amendment sought was of a purely legal nature and could be allowed even without formal amendment. 3- Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide on matters pertaining to Sharia law. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir acknowledged the petitioner's argument that there is no limitation for filing an application for amendment in pleadings under Order VI Rule 17. The Court also noted that the learned High Court incorrectly held that the matter pertains to Sharia law and could not be raised before the Civil Court. The Court recognized that the amendment sought was of a purely legal nature and should have been allowed to be argued even without formal amendment. The Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the questions raised require disposal in a regular appeal. The petitioner was directed to deposit security of Rs. 1000/- within 10 days, failing which the leave-granting order would automatically be rescinded. ----Citations/Precedents: Order VI Rule 17 Section 13 of the amended pre-emption law

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court, which was dismissed on 20.01.2020. The petitioner initially filed a suit for possession based on the right of prior purchase regarding a piece of land. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner sought to amend the plaint, but the application was rejected by the Civil Judge. The petitioner’s revision petition to the District Judge was also dismissed, leading to the filing of a writ petition in the High Court, which was again dismissed. ----Issues: 1- Whether there is a limitation for filing an application for amendment in pleadings. 2- Whether the amendment sought by the petitioner, which pertains to a question of Sharia, could be raised before the Civil Court. 3- Whether the pre-emption law amendments affected the maintainability of the suit. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court acknowledged that there is no limitation for filing an application for amendment in pleadings as per Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The Court held that the amendments sought were of a purely legal nature and could be allowed even without a formal amendment. The Court recognized that the amendments in pre-emption law, requiring specific procedures (Talb-i-muwathibat, Talb-i-ishhad, and Talb-i-khusumat), were mandatory for the maintainability of the suit, and incorporating these grounds after the prescribed period was not permissible. The Supreme Court found that the questions raised in the petition were of first impression and required disposal in a regular appeal. Therefore, leave to appeal was granted, directing the petitioner to deposit a security fee within ten days.