P L D 2025 Balochistan 113
Before Zaheer ud Din Kakar and Iqbal Ahmed Kasi, JJ
SAEED AHMED and 4 others ---Petitioners
Versus
BIBI KHOURD and others ---Respondents
Constitution Petition No. 110 of 2023, decided on 25th March, 2024.
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---
----O. VI, R. 17--- Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42--- Suit for declaration and partition of
joint properties ---Application for amendment of plaint ---Proposed amendment not specified
with exactitude ---Plaintiffs filed an application under O. VI, R. 17 of Civil Procedure Code,
1908 ('C.P.C.') praying for necessary amendments in the plaint ---Trial Court dismissed the
application of the petitioners/ plaintiffs ---Petitioners/plaintiffs filed constitutional petition as
their revision petition was also dismissed ---Validity ---Provisions of O. VI, R. 17, C.P.C.,
empower any party to a suit to alter or amend its pleadings in such manner as may be just;
from the said requirement of law, it is clear that any party to a litigation is supposed to be clear and categoric in what it/they are praying to be inserted in already filed pleadings by way of amendment ---For this, an applicant(s) under O. VI, R. 17, C.P.C. should indicate in
clear terms as to which part of the pleadings, it/they intend to add or delete and in case of
addition, proposed addition must be provided in unequivocal terms ---Proposed amendment
must not be vague or evasive ---In the present case, the application moved by the
petitioners/plaintiffs seeking amendment, it was difficult to ascertain, with some exactitude, as to what was required to be added in the already filed plaint and at which part of the plaint -
--The wording used in R. 17 of O. VI, C.P.C., clearly suggests that relevant portions of the pleadings must be pointed out by the person(s), intending to cause any amendment in the pleadings, and the portion, which is to be inserted as a result of alteration or amendment is concerned, should be specifically provided---The application moved by the petitioners/plaintiffs was lacking completely in this regard ---Nowhere in the application, any
proposed amendment, in clear terms, had been provided and similarly, it was not mentioned as to in which part of the already filed plaint, the proposed amendment was to be added or altered ---General prayer for amendment cannot be made or allowed and such proposed
amendment should be in writing and in explicit form and in the same way, order if allowing amendment should also be specific and clear showing nature and extent of amendment allowed ---No illegality or irregularity had been noticed on the part of the Courts below while
dismissing the application moved by the petitioners/plaintiffs, seeking amendment in the plaint ---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Matwali Khan v. Shah Zaman and others PLD 1965 AJ&K 26 ref.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---
----O. VI, R. 17--- Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42--- Suit for declaration and partition of
joint properties ---Second application for amendment of plaint ---Plaintiffs filed an application
under O. VI, R. 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('C.P.C.') praying for necessary amendments in the plaint---Trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioners/plaintiffs -
--Petitioners/plaintiffs filed constitutional petition as their revision petition was also dismissed ---Validity ---Record revealed that prior to the present application, the
petitioners/plaintiffs sought amendment, which was allowed and in the present application same facts were narrated by them, which showed that they were lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other ---Petitioners/ plaintiffs had not made out their case for amendment in
the already filed plaint and also failed to point out as to how the present amendment would be relevant, especially, when they filed the same fact in the application, which was allowed --
-No illegality or irregularity had been noticed on the part of the Courts below while
dismissing the application moved by the petitioners/plaintiffs, seeking amendment in the plaint ---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Muhammad Arshad Aziz for Petitioners.
Chaudhary Sri Chand for Respondents Nos. 1 to 1- G and 2 to 8.
Changaiz Dashti, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents Nos. 10 to 12.
Date of hearing: 20th March, 2024.
JUDGMENT
IQBAL AHMED KASI, J. ---The instant Constitutional Petition filed under Article
199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("the Constitution"), carries
the following prayer clause:
"It is therefore respectfully prayed that the order dated 18.01.2023 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Dalbandi, and the order dated 19.01.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge, Dalbandin be declared as improper, illegal and unlawful, hence set it aside accordingly and in consequences thereof the application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. be allowed as prayed for; along with any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded in favour of petitioner, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play."
2. Brief facts giving rise to file this petition are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit
for Declaration and partition of joint properties bearing Khewat No.77, Khatooni No.134,
Khasra Nos.975, 978, 982, 984, Khewat No.77, Khatooni No.132, Khasra Nos.1066,
1067,1072, 1075, 974, 979, 980, 981, 1037, 1087, 1088, 1090 and Khewat No.77, Khatooni No.133 and Khasra Nos.1062, 1063, 1064, 1065, 1073, 1074, 1076, 1084, 1085, 1086, 0891,
1108, situated at Mouza Chaghi ("the suit properties") before the Judicial Magistrate/Civil
Judge, Dalbandin ("the trial Court") against the respondents/defendants and thereby prayed
for a decree of declaration in terms that the suit properties are joint among the parties, as
such, be partitioned accordingly.
3. After the institution of the suit, notices were issued. The respondents/defendants filed
their written statement contesting the suit on legal and factual grounds. Meanwhile, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C., and prayed for necessary amendments in the suit. The respondents/defendants contested the application by way of filing their rejoinder to the application of the petitioners/plaintiffs and prayed for its rejection.
4. Upon receipt of rejoinder on the application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C.,
arguments were heard from both sides and consequently, the trial Court vide order dated 19.01.2022 ("the impugned order") rejected/dismissed the application of the petitioners/ plaintiffs.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied from the impugned order, the petitioners/plaintiffs
assailed the same before the Additional District Judge, Dalbandin ("the revisional Court") by way of filing revision petition. The revisional Court issued notices to respondents/defendants and the respondents/defendants appeared through their counsel. After hearing arguments from both parties, the revisional Court passed the order dated 18.01.2023 ("the impugned order"), whereby, the revision petition filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs was dismissed, hence this petition.
6. Learned counsel for petitioners/plaintiffs inter alia contended that the orders dated
18.01.2023 and 19.01.2022 passed by the Courts below are perverse, factually incorrect, patently illegal and completely inconsistent with the provisions governing administration of justice; that during the course of proceedings, it revealed that the respondent/ defendant No.1 in concealing manner and without the knowledge of the mother of the petitioners/plaintiffs transferred the suit properties in his name, as such, the petitioners/plaintiffs rightly invoked the provision of Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C., but both the Courts below failed to appreciate this aspect of the case; that without making the necessary amendment within the plaint, the case was defective and no proper judgment/order can be passed.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/defendants opposed the contention
of learned counsel for petitioners/plaintiffs on the ground that after filing suit, the
petitioners/plaintiffs prior to the instant application, filed the application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. for necessary amendment, which was allowed and amended suit was filed; that the application is vague and against the provision of Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C.; that all
the fact narrated by the petitioners/plaintiffs are very well in the knowledge of
petitioners/plaintiffs, but he failed to bring it on record.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record
minutely with their able assistance.
The provisions of Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C . empower any party to a suit to alter or amend
his pleadings in such manner as may be just. From the above requirement of law, it is, but
clear that any party to a litigation, is supposed to be clear and categoric in what he/they is/are
praying to be inserted in already filed pleadings by way of amendment. For such, an
applicant(s) under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. is required to indicate in clear terms as to at
which part of the pleadings, he/they intended to add or delete some version and in case of addition, proposed addition must be provided in unequivocal terms. The proposed
amendment must not be vague or evasive.
9. When on such touchstone, the application moved by the present petitioners/plaintiffs
seeking amendment is adjudged, one found it difficult to ascertain, with some exactitude, as
to what is required to be added in the already filed plaint and at which part of the plaint. The
wording used in Rule 17 of Order VI, C.P.C. as noted here in above, clearly suggests that
relevant portions of the pleadings must be pointed out by the person(s), intending to cause
any amendment in the pleadings, and the portion, which is to be inserted as a result of
alteration or amendment is concerned, be specifically provided.
10. The application moved by the petitioners/plaintiffs is lacking completely in this
regard. Nowhere in the application, any proposed amendment, in clear terms, has been
provided and similarly, it is not mentioned as to at which part of the already filed plaint, the
proposed amendment is to be added or altered.
11. The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in case titled "Matwali Khan v. Shah
Zaman and others" PLD 1965 AJ&K 26, has held that general prayer for amendment cannot
be made or allowed and that proposed amendment should be in writing and in explicit form
and in the same way, order if allowing amendment should also be specific and clear showing
nature and extent of amendment allowed.
12. The record reveals that prior to the instant application, the petitioners/plaintiffs
sought amendment, which was allowed and in the instant application same facts are narrated
by the petitioners/plaintiffs, which shows that the petitioners/plaintiffs are lingering on the
matter on one pretext or the other.
13. The petitioners/plaintiffs have not made out their case for amendment in the already
filed plaint and also failed to point out as to the present amendment would be relevant,
especially, when they filed the same fact in the application, which was allowed.
14. We found no illegality or irregularity on the part of the Courts below while dismissing
the application, moved by the present petitioners/plaintiffs, seeking amendment in the plaint.
15. The impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, so as to warrant
interference by this Court in Constitutional jurisdiction. The instant petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
MQ/38/Bal. Petition dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.