' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN, J.--- Mumtaz Baig and others, petitioners, through the filing of this Writ Petition No,511 of 2002, have challenged the judgment and order dated 8-4-2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge/Izafi Zila Qazi, Swat whereby order, dated 14-4-2001 of learned Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi, Swat, refusing amendment in plaint, was set aside and the proposed amendment was allowed on payment of Rs,50 by way of costs.
2. Facts in brief are that Sarfraz Baig, respondent herein, instituted suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge/Aala Illaqa Qazi, Swat, against Mumtaz Baig and others, petitioners, for declaration that he was owner in possession of suit property consisting of shops, houses, garrage and agricultural property, detailed in the plaint and defendants were not justified to deny his title and assert their own in respect thereof. The entries incorporated in the Revenue papers regarding certain property in suit, in the name of Maqsood Baig, were also brought under challenge. A prayer for grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, to alienate the suit property in any manner, was also made. The suit wasresisted on all grounds and necessary issues, arising out of the pleadings of the parties were formulated. Partial evidence of the plaintiff was recorded when he moved an application on 21-10-2000 for amendment in the plaint seeking correction in boundaries and share of the petitioner in the land in question. The application was strongly opposed and it was dismissed vide order dated 14-4-2001 which was set aside in revision by the learned Additional District Judge/Izafi Zila Qazi, Swat, through the impugned order dated 8-4-2002.
3. Mr. Muhammad Saeed Khan, Advocate for the petitioners criticized the impugned order bitterly and contended, inter alia, that by the proposed amendment the entire complexion of the suit has been changed and a new cause of action has been introduced which has materially prejudiced the rights of the petitioners. The learned counsel asserted that at this belated stage, the learned Appellate Court was not justified to accept application of the respondent and allowed the proposed amendment. To support the plea, he placed reliance on Muhammad Zahoor and another v. Lal Muhammad and 2 others 1988 SCMR 322, Muhammad Samiullah Khan v. Additional District Judge, Sargodha PLD 2002 Lah. 56 and Muhammad Khan and 6 others v. Mst. Ghulam and 12 others 1991 SCMR 970.
4. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the material on file, we find that the order of the learned revisional Court is perfectly legal and needs no interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioners have not been able to successfully demonstrate the existence of circumstances justifying the acceptance of instant writ petition. It is not denied that in order to arrive at a correct decision and to do complete justice between the parties, a liberal view is taken and delay alone in applying for amendment cannot be considered a good ground for refusal of amendment if attending circumstances so permit.
Provisions of Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. Confers authority for allowing amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings in such manner and on such terms as may be just and such amendments are to be allowed if necessary for the purpose of determination of real question in controversy between the parties. Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. Reads:-- "The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties."
5. There is no cavil with the proposition that Court is alwaysempowered under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. And enjoys jurisdiction to allow amendments in plaint at any stage which are just and necessary for final disposal of the case in between the parties. Needless to add that at the same time the Court is bound to exercise such jurisdiction in accordance with settled judicial principles particularly while allowing request for amendment that no prejudice is caused to other side and secondly for accurate determination of case, amendment is necessary. Amendment can be allowed at any stage, if it does not change the cause of action of the suit. Amendment can be allowed to seek consequential relief arising from the cause of action originally incorporated in plaint. C Amendment can be allowed to add additional relief available to plaintiff even before higher Courts of jurisdiction. Amendment can also be allowed for converting a suit from one relief to another i,e, if suit was filed for declaration, same can be converted into possession etc. However, amendment cannot be allowed when mala fide on part of plaintiff is explicitly visible in the pleadings. Amendment cannot be allowed to raise a plea of fact which is derogatory to the plea already taken up in the plaint particularly when such fact amounts to admission in favour of other side. Amendment can also be refused to substitute cause of action or introduce a new cause of action which was not available at all at the time of filing of suit. The following observations were made in PLD 1985 SC 345, on the subject:--- "What has been stated above is, however, subject to a very important condition that the nature of the suit insofar as its cause of action is concerned is not changed by the amendment whether it falls under the .First part of rule 17 or in the second part, because when the cause of action is changed the suit itself would become different from the one initially filed. Here this condition would not have been contravened if the amendment had been allowed by the High Court. The bundle of facts narrated in the plaint which constitute the cause of action as the application for amendment shows would not have suffered any material change if the request would have been allowed. Apart from the consequential technical changes mutatis mutandis in the context of the grounds stated in the application for amendment, only two major amendments were sought to be made in the plaint. They would have been firstly, the change in the heading signifying the suit being for specific performance etc. Instead of declaration etc. And secondly there was to be a similar change in the prayer paragraph. These amendments would not have caused embarrassment to the respondents defendants either in seeking and making similar amendments in the written statement. The inconveniences caused to the respondents as the provision itself visualize is not only natural but would ordinarily be occasioned in almost every case. That .Is why the law visualizes the award of adequate compensation, in that the amendment has to be allowed `in such manner and on such terms as may be just'.''
6. The proposed amendment has not changed the cause of action or subject-matter in the lis. The same has been allowed in order to do complete justice between the parties and avoid further litigation. Learned counsel for the petitioners has remained unable to satisfy us that the amendment under reference has prejudiced the cause of the petitioners and as such the same should not have been allowed. Ghulam Nabi v. Sardar Nazir Ahmad 1985 SCMR 824, Ali Hussain v.
Late Ali Ahmad Khan 1983 SCMR 1178 and Ahmad Din v. Muhammad Shafi PLD 1971 SC 762.
7. As a result of the above discussion, finding no substance in this writ petition, we dismiss the same in limine.