' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J---Instant civil revision assailed the judgment/order, dated 23-1- 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge Lahore whereby application of the petitioner under Order VI. Rule 17, C.P.C. Praying amendment of his written statement was dismissed.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that respondents filed a suit for possession/declaration of being owners as successors of late Sheikh Javed Iqbal Uppal, regarding land detailed in para. 2 of the plaint, with the assertions that their predecessor (Sheikh Javed Iqbal Uppal) entered into an agreement to sell his land for an amount of Rs,27,00,000 against an earnest money of Rs,5,00,000 on 5-9-1999 with the petitioner. It was further pleaded that petitioner through a subsequent agreement, agreed to enhance sale price to Rs,30,50,000 at the time of execution/registration of sale deed of the land measuring 1 kanal 12 marlas. Respondents also averred that petitioner failed to perform his part of contract and did not pay the outstanding sale price and at the same time, he did not surrender the possession thus their land was in his illegal possession and they were entitled to recover .Mesne profit which was denied by the petitioner, leading to institution of the suit.
3. Petitioner being defendant in the suit contested the same by filing his written statement wherein he raised certain preliminary objections and denied his liability to pay mesne profit or to surrender the possession of the land where over he claimed to have raised certainconstructions, including installation of machinery etc. Petitioner vide preliminary objection No,6 of written statement, has pleaded that he is in possession of the suit property on the basis of sales by Javed Iqbal and other vendors and in paragraph No,6-A of the reply on merits, he has asserted that predecessor-in- interest of the respondents/plaintiffs had received a substantial amount from him in lieu of the land in his possession, thus they are liable to pay compensation to him at the bank rate.
4. Pending suit of the respondents, petitioner moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151, C.P.C. Praying amendment of the written statement, so as to plead that deceased Sh.
Javed Iqbal Uppal was not owner of the property, as the same was mortgaged for 5 years but was not redeemed inspite of lapse of 65 years leading to decree, dated 7-7-1994 in favor of some Sajjad Hussain and others. The proposed amendment by the petitioner was detailed in para. 2 of his application. Respondents opposed the prayer of amendment of the written statement and the learned Civil Judge seized of the matter, after hearing the parties, dismissed the application vide his order, dated 23-1-2007. Petitioner being aggrieved of dismissal of hisapplication, filed instant civil revision and respondents in response to notice by this Court, have appeared through their counsel.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undisputedly, petitioner in his written statement had not denied title of predecessor-in- interest of the respondents, as noted in the factual part of this judgment but now through proposed amendment he has prayed to set up an absolutely new case which is in clear contradiction to his earlier stance. Petitioner having once admitted ownership/title of Sheikh Javed Iqbal Uppal cannot be permitted to turn back to say that he was not owner of the property under his possession. Petitioner was aware of the facts leading to his prayer for amendment of the written statement, at the time when the same was originally filed and then, at the time of filing of second written A statement in response to amended plant but he did not assert these facts. The proposed amendment will introduce a new defence plea in clear contradiction to earlier defence but this course is not permissible, under law.
6. No doubt amendments in the pleadings of the parties are to be liberally allowed under Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C., in case those do not aim at to set up a new case, changing the entire complexion of pleas raised or set up in defence or substitute the original cause of action etc. The judgments in the cases of Tariq Mehmood Niazi v. Nadeem Afzal and another (PLD 1996 Lahore 429), (Messrs) Trans Oceanic Steamship Co. Limited and another v. (Messrs) Tayoob Moosa and Company(PLD 1959 (W.P.) Karachi 399) go a long way to disapprove the prayer of amendment of written statement made by the petitioner. Be that as it may, scan of record and impugned order revealed that controversy was correctly put to rest, without committing any error of law/facts or illegality/irregularity in terms of section 115, C.P.C.
7. For the reasons noted above, no case for interference in revisional jurisdiction, of this Court was made out and consequently instant petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs.