Saeed Ahmed and 4 others V. Bibi Khourd and others,
Bench: Gul Hassan Tareen
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a dispute over jointly-owned family property in Chaghi, Balochistan. The petitioners had filed a civil suit seeking a court declaration that certain lands were jointly owned and should be divided among the family members through partition. While the suit was pending, they filed an application asking the trial court to allow amendments to their original plaint.
The trial court rejected this amendment application, and when the petitioners challenged that decision through a revision petition before the Additional District Judge, that too was dismissed. They then approached the Balochistan High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, asking it to set aside both lower court orders and allow their proposed amendments.
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the decisions of both lower courts. It held that anyone seeking to amend pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code must clearly and specifically state exactly what changes they want to make and where in the document those changes should go. Vague or general requests for amendment cannot be granted. In this case, the petitioners had not clearly specified what they wanted added or changed. The court also noted this was effectively a second attempt at amendment, repeating facts already covered in an earlier amendment that had been allowed, suggesting the petitioners were delaying the case rather than genuinely needing changes.
This ruling reinforces that amendment applications must be precise and specific, not open-ended, to prevent misuse of procedural rules to stall litigation.
یہ مقدمہ چاغی، بلوچستان میں مشترکہ خاندانی جائیداد کے تنازع سے متعلق تھا۔ درخواست گزاروں نے ایک دیوانی دعویٰ دائر کیا تھا جس میں عدالت سے استدعا کی گئی تھی کہ وہ اس بات کا اعلان کرے کہ مذکورہ اراضی مشترکہ ملکیت ہے اور اسے تقسیم کے ذریعے خاندان کے افراد میں بانٹا جائے۔ دعویٰ زیرِ سماعت تھا کہ اسی دوران انہوں نے ایک درخواست دائر کی جس میں ٹرائل کورٹ سے استدعا کی گئی کہ انہیں اپنے اصل دعوے میں ترمیم کرنے کی اجازت دی جائے۔
ٹرائل کورٹ نے یہ ترمیمی درخواست مسترد کر دی، اور جب درخواست گزاروں نے اس فیصلے کو نظرثانی درخواست کے ذریعے ایڈیشنل ڈسٹرکٹ جج کے سامنے چیلنج کیا تو وہ درخواست بھی خارج کر دی گئی۔ اس کے بعد انہوں نے آئین کے آرٹیکل 199 کے تحت بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ سے رجوع کیا اور استدعا کی کہ دونوں ماتحت عدالتوں کے احکامات کالعدم قرار دیے جائیں اور ان کی مجوزہ ترامیم کی اجازت دی جائے۔
ہائی کورٹ نے یہ درخواست
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
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.