' MRS. FAKHAR UN NISA KHOKHAR, J.-Precise facts in the instant writ petition are that a suit for declaration in respect of mortgaging rights on property of Khata No,274 min Khatooni No,864, Square No,60 killa No,4/1 measuring 7 Kanals (1 Kanal) with the description given in the body of the plaint was filed and alternatively the plaintiff/petitioner sought decree for specific performance ' of agreement to sell, dated 17-10-1981 from Rana Zil Muhammad, the predecessor-in- interest of the defendant/respondent. The suit was contested by the respondents/defendants by filing written statement and he raised preliminary objections that the suit is incompetent on the basis that the possession of the suit property is not with the plaintiff, lack of cause of action, deficiency of Court- fee and jurisdiction, being time-barred and also praying for appointment of Local Commissioner was made in his averments. Later on during proceedings of the said suit a Local Commissioner was appointed by the Court'who after inspection of the spot filed report in respect if disputed land situated in Mauza Mangowal Khurd Tehsil Shah Pur District Sargodha subject to the objection of the parties. Afterwards, the plaintiff gave application under Order VI, rule 17 of C.P.C. Which was contested by the. Respondents/defendant. He sought permission to add the name of Mauza and Tehsil in which the disputed land is situated in the body of the plaint.
2. After hearing the arguments of both and parties learned trial Court vide order, dated 11-6-2002 disallowed the amendment while observing that the plaintiff has instituted suit for declaration in respect of the property comprising in Khewat No,274 min Khatooni No,864 min .Killa No,4/1 by giving the detail description in the head note of the pliant which he has prayed to add the name of Mauza and Tehsil in the plaint. He has based his claim on the alleged agreement, dated 17-10-1981 and in the said agreement name of village/mauza are not mentioned, therefore, the amendment could not be allowed. The revision against the said order was also dismissed vide judgment, dated 14-12- 2002 hence this writ petition.
3. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are that amendment sought in the body of the plaint where the description of property is mentioned it will neither change the character of the suit nor effect the nature of the suit nor it will give rise to new cause of action. Even otherwise the respondents/defendants have not raised any objection in respect of wrong description of the property in the written statement nor he has given any explanation of the misdescription of the property in the reply submitted by him when the objection petition submitted by him on the report of Local Commissioner, rather on the pointation of the parties, the Local Commissioner submitted his report. No one came forward to inform the Court that the place visited by the Local Commissioner was not property in dispute, therefore, no ambiguity in respect of the situation of the property exist. Even otherwise in the fair and true administration of the justice a very liberal attitude has been adopted by the superior Courts in respect of the amendment in the body of the plaint.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the description of the property is not-existing in the alleged agreement to sell on the basis of which instant suit was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. The suit in its present form is incompetent as the . Petitioner/ plaintiff has filed suit for declaration on the basis of alleged agreement to sell where the name of the disputed land is not mentioned. According to settled proposition of law the plaintiff is under the duty of law first to get rectification document under section 31 of Specific Relief Act, and then come forward and file a suit in the civil Court. He further argued that the party has filed the instant writ petition to get settled the alleged agreement to sell and also the report of Local Commissioner and the amendment in the body of plaint will change the entire nature of the case and in this way party wants to cover the limitation as the suit is time-barred.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The provisions of Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. Permits the Court "at any stage" of the proceedings to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just and all such amendment shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. However the court will be reluctant when the purpose of amendment raises new cause of action or alter the nature of the suit. In the instant application the petitioner/plaintiff only prays for amendment of the plaint in respect of mentioning the Mauza and Tehsil although Khata and Khatooni are already mentioned. Both the learned Courts below have failed to understand that if the amendment is not allowed in case of decree or dismissal of the suit vide "judgment and decree" which property will be mentioned and moreover, when the report of Local Commissioner is existing on the record subject to the objections of the parties and it is mentioning the Mauza Mangowal, Tehsil Shahpur unchallenged by the parties, there was no occasion for disallowing the application to amend the body of the plaint. The worry of learned counsel for the respondents that his legal objections and legal rights will be impaired if that amendment is allowed, such apprehensions are groundless and will not fetter defendant's legal fights as to the plaint being incompetent or to question viries of the contents of document on the basis of which the suit is filed and also it will not effect the report of Local Commissioner, in respect of the objection of the parties to the suit which is to be decided by the Court independently and also the parties Can raise all such legal points which they enjoy through settled proposition .Of law, at all time during the proceedings of a suit.
7. Amendments are liberally allowed by the Courts specially those which do not alter the character of the suit, neither change its nature nor raises a new cause of action. In the present case the amendment is only in respect of addition of Mauza and Tehsil where disputed land is situated and it is not hit by aforesaid provisions of law, therefore, the judgment passed by learned trial Court, dated 11-6-2002 and that of Revisional Court, dated 4-12-2002 are hereby set aside and the amendment in the body of the plaint is allowed subject to ail legal rights of the parties.