' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.--- The petitioner brought a suit for mandatory injunction against the respondents, which after contest and trial has been dismissed, vide judgment and decree, dated 9-6-2005; the petitioner preferred an appeal and during the pendency thereof, moved an application for the amendment of the suit, just to add the word "Declaration" before the words "mandatory injunction" in the plaint and also the prayer clause was sought to be amended, in the following terms:--- "declaring the appellant a bona fide allottee."
' This application as also the main appeal has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, through the impugned judgment and decree on the ground that the format of the suit is not correct.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others v. Sarsa Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 345, contends that the amendment should be liberally allowed and can be so made at any stage of the litigation. It is stated, that the word "declaration" in no manner would change the nature of the suit and therefore, the petitioner should not have been non-suited on technical ground.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find, that the argument of the petitioner's counsel is well-founded. The Court should have allowed the amendment, because such amendment, if allowed, would not entail the recording of any further evidence or trial in the A matter; but only would correct the form of the suit, as has been held by the learned Appellate Court, that in the present form the suit is not properly framed. Therefore, the learned Appellate Court has not decided the matter on merit, thus, by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree of the Court of Appeal and by allowing the application of the petitioner under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C., the amendment proposed is B permitted; the amended plaint should be brought on the record and the learned Appellate Court shall decide the case in accordance with law.
'The parties are directed to appear before the learned Appellate Court on 4-10-2006. Accordingly, this revision is allowed.