' ANWARUL HAQ PANNU N, J Respondents Nos.1 to 5 brought a declaratory suit against the petitioners and others claiming themselves to be the owners in possession, according to their shares in the suit-land and also challenged the entries of the revenue record offending to their rights in favour of the petitioners and others regarding their ownership. During the pendency of the suit Khaliq Dad Khan defendant died and his legal heirs were brought on record and the amended plaint was also filed. In para. 1 of the plaint respondents Nos.1 to 5/plaintiff asserted that the original owner of the property was Malik Imam Bakhsh Khan son of Habib Khan who died in the year, 1947. The deceased belonged to Baluch Gormani Tribe and was follower of Fiqa Hanfia regarding the inheritance matter. Defendants Nos.1 to 5 filed a written statement, raising a verity of preliminary as well as factual objections therein by denying the averments of the plaint, however, the averment made in para No,1 of the plaint was admitted to be correct. The learned trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the respective issues and fixed the case for recording of evidence when the defendants Nos.1 to 5 filed an application for amendments in the written statement wherein they sought permission to add two preliminary objections i.e, Nos.8 and 9 which reads as follows:-- {{URDU TEXT}}
2. Respondents/plaintiffs resisted the application by filing written reply on the ground that the amendment sought to be incorporated in the written statement were not only contrary to the pleas already raised by them but are also based on mala fide. The learned trial Court vide order dated 21-11-1998 accepted the application of the petitioners. Respondents Nos.1 to 5 feeling themselves aggrieved of the above noted order passed by learned civil Court preferred a revision petition before the learned Additional District Judge, D.-G. Khan which was accepted vide order dated 11-1- 2000 and consequently the order dated 21-11-1998 of the learned trial Judge was set aside, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 11-3-2000 through this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is by now well established in the legal parlance that the amendment, sought by either parties to the suit can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings and in this regard the legal provisions are construed very liberally and only restriction imposed upon the Courts by law in this regard is that through the amendment the nature and character of the suit should not be allowed to be changed. He adds that the amendment sought by the petitioners in their written statement does not, in any way change either the form of the suit or character of the suit rather the same are merely of explanatory in their nature. He has added that the order of allowing the amendment sought for in the written statement was not a case decided, therefore, the revision petition filed by the respondents was not maintainable, hence prayed for setting aside of the order dated 11-3-2000 of the Additional District Judge and the same was not amenable to revisional jurisdiction.
4. On the other hand at the very outset learned counsel for the respondents argued that the present writ petition against the order passed by a revisional Court is not maintainable, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents by inviting the attention of this Court towards para one of written statement contends that the petitioners have made an admission in their written statement. He adds that the petitioners in fact want to back out of this important admission made by them in their written statement which would, if allowed prejudice the interests of plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon 2006 YLR 1341, 2000 CLC 892, 2002 CLC 551, PLD 2003 LHR 192, 2008 CLC 161, and 2007 M LD 1580.
5. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the record and going through the case-law cited at Bar by the parties it is straightaway observed that there is no doubt in the mind of this Court that while submitting written reply in response to the plaint by the petitioners they have admitted paragraph No,1 of the plaint to be correct. Paragraphs No,1 of the plaint as well as written statement, are reproduced here under:-- {{URDU TEXT}}
6. The defendants/petitioners have admitted paras Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint in their written statement in an unqualified manner, this being the position the c argument of the learned counsel for the respondents appears to be more weighty than that of the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Although, the amendment in the pleadings can be allowed at any stage of he litigation and the amendments, sought for, by the parties are liberally granted unless it affects the very form and nature of the suit. Even D the parties are allowed to raiste contradictory pleas in their pleadings at their own risk but under the garb of an amendment, the unqualified admission made by a party on the factual aspect of the case is not needed to be proved by the party I in whose favour it is made. Likewise the advantage of one party cannot be allowed to be reduced into its disadvantage by the act of Court unless it is proved that the same was result of human error not beyond the control of that party or but some misunderstanding. The pleadings of the parties are verified on oath under the law by the respective parties, therefore, some element of solemnizing can be attached to its contents, particularly when it is submitted in the Court under the advise of legal expert.
7. For what has been discussed hereinabove no legal infirmity in exercise of jurisdiction by the revisional Court in arriving at the conclusion, through the impugned order dated 11-3-2000 could have been pointed out through this petition, hence this petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their costs.