, MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.---This writ petition arises out of the facts of a civil suit for declaration filed by Abdul Rauf and others plaintiffs-respondents herein against the present petitioners asserting therein that they are owners-inpossession/co-sharers of the property in dispute and the Mutation No.35 attested on 24-2-1952 is illegal, ineffective qua their rights praying for injunction restraining the defendants/petitioners from interfering in their possessory rights.
2. The suit was contested by the defendant/petitioner. The evidence of the parties was recorded by the learned trial Court. At that stage, respondents Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs filed an application for amendment in the plaint which was contested by the defendant/petitioner and the learned trial Court/respondent No.3 vide order dated 4-11-2004 dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved, respondents Nos.1 and 2 preferred a revision petition which came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura/respondent No.4, who vide his order dated 28-9-2005 accepted the revision petition, set aside the order of the learned trial Court allowing the application for amendment in the plaint. The revisional order has been assailed by the petitioner through the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the amendment in the plaint would not have been allowed at a belated stage which has changed the whole complexion of the case. Further contends that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had filed the application for amendment in the plaint mala fidely. Further contends that the proposed amendment has introduced a new cause of action which was not available at the time of filing of the suit and that it has prejudiced the case of the petitioner. He has placed reliance on the cases of M.V. Kaptan Yousuf Kakkavan v. Semco Salvage PVt. Ltd. (1992 CLC 143), Ghulam Haider y. Muhammad Ayoub (2001 SCMR 133) and Hidayatuallah and 2 others v. Haqnawaz and another (1990 CLC 1095)..
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. The applicants/respondents Nos.1 and 2 sought the following amendment' in the plaint:- {{URDU TEXT}}
6. The superior Courts have always taken into consideration the principles for allowing or declining amendment in the pleadings as conducted in Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. And those are:--
(1) Amendment would be allowed at any stage if it did not change the cause of action of the suit.
(2) Amendment would be allowed to seek consequential relief arising from the cause of action originally incorporated in plaint.
(3) Amendment would be allowed to add additional relief available to plaintiff even before Higher Courts of jurisdiction such-like High Court and Supreme Court.
(4) Amendment would also be allowed for converting a suit from one relief to another i.e. If suit was filed for declaration, same could be converted into possession etc.
7. The lower Court has declined the amendment in the plaint on the ground that the application has been filed at a belated stage. The mere filing of such application at such a late stage is not a ground to reject the application. Reliance in this context can be placed to the case of Munir Ahmad and 7 others v. Additional District Judge, Kasur and 14 others (PLD 2001 Lahore 149). In the case of Mst.. Rahim Noor v. Mst. Salim Bibi and 2 others (PLD 1992 SC 30), it has been held by the Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court that C.P.C. Does not prohibit permission to amend pleadings even at late stage, when of course it was necessary. Same view was upheld by the Court in case of Qamar-ud-Din v. Muhammad Din and others (PLD 2001 SC 518).
8. In the suit in hand, the plaintiffs/respondents Nos.1 and 2 have sought amendment in the plaint of factual grounds. The amendment sought for has not changed the complexion and character of the suit. By different clauses of the plaint, the plaintiffs sought change/amendment in the figures with regard to the share of the land. Neither any new case has been set up nor a contradictory stand has been taken nor a new cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs/respondents. They sought the amendment on the basis of the original cause of action. The amendment of the plaint is the right of a party when the same relates to the cause of action on which the suit is based. Once the Court decides that the amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question as envisaged under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C., the Court is required by law not only to allow the application but is also bound to allow amendment for the said purpose. The amendment is subject to the condition that the cause of action does not change the main substance and nature of the suit or caused prejudice to other side. Reliance can be placed to the case of Mumtaz Baig and 5 others v. Sarfraz Baig (2003 CLC 713) and Dharamdas and others v. Member Board of Revenue and others (1999 MLD 2968).
9. So far as the case-laws referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, the facts of these cases are not applicable on all the fours of the present case. In case of Ghulam Haider (supra), the suit filed by Muhammad Ayoub respondent was decreed and appeal was preferred against the judgment of the learned trial Court before the Appellate Court, where an application for amendment in the written statement to the effect that he be allowed to plead that he himself is the exclusive owner with possession of the suit property and his step-brother through fraud, misrepresentation and behind his back got suit-land transferred in their name while in his earlier written statement he has not asserted this new plea. He stated in the written statement that the land in dispute was situated adjacent to his house. He is in its possession and that he is entitled to file suit for pre-emption for which Talbs have been made. The defendants have not produced the evidence in the Court in support of his earlier stand in his written stand. In the case of Hidayatullah and 2 others (supra), the amendment in the written statement was sought with a view to add the new pleas of sinker which was not pointed out in the written statement. In case of M.V. Kaptan Yousuf Kakkavan (supra), the amendment in the plaint was sought seeking permission to file the arbitration award and it was not mentioned in the earlier suit. It would mean that the plaintiff wanted to put up a new case and the amendment in the plaint putting up a different cause of action and a new case would be contrary to the spirit of law.
10. The learned trial Court has only disallowed the amendment in the plaint observing that the application has been filed at a belated stage. There is no mention in the order that proposed amendment would entirely change the complexion and character of the suit or that it would be set up a new case. As already observed in preceding paragraphs, the delayed application for amendment in the plaint is not a ground for rejection of the same. It is settled principle of law that the amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings even in the High Court as well as apex Court.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality, excess of jurisdiction by the Revisional Court or that the impugned order is perverse, void or without lawful authority.
12. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition being devoid of force is dismissed in limine. in limine.