' SYED QALB-I-HASSAN, J.--- Relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that respondents Nos.1 to 7 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and challenged the Mutation No,3616 dated 23-1-1988 in favour of the present petitioner. The petitioner entered appearance, submitted his written: statement and contested the suit. The learned trial Court out of divergent pleading framed the following issues:-- (1). Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action, and locus standi to file the suit? OPD.
(2). Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.
(3). Whether the suit is barred under section 11 of C.P.C.? OPD.
(4). Whether the suit is barred under Order II, rule. 2 C.P.C.? OPD.
(5). Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of parties ? OPD.
(6). Whether the plaintiff has not affixed court-fee property? If so, what is the correct valuation?
OPD.
(7). Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his words and conduct to file this suit? OPD.
(8). Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD.
(9) Whether the defendants are entitled for special costs? If so, its extent? OPD (10). Whether the mutation No,3616 dated 23-1-1988 is illegal, void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff? OPP.
(11) Whether the plaintiff are owners of the suit-land? OPP.
(12) Relief.
2. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that respondents Nos.1 to 7 are not in possession of the suit property, therefore, the suit is not proceedable in view of bar contained in proviso to section 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877. Respondents Nos.1 to 7 filed an appeal before Additional District Judge, Islamabad and during the pendency of the appeal they moved an application for amendment of the plaint. Although the Additional District Judge, Islamabad, agreed with the finding of the learned trial Court but allowed the application for amendment of the suit and case was remanded to the learned trial Court with direction to frame additional issues after receipt of amended plaint and written statement, recording of evidence of the additional issues and to decide the suit afresh.
3. The petitioner has impugned the validity and proprietary of the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Islamabad through the instant revision petition. The revision petition was initially filed in Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi and was transferred to this Court after establishment of Islamabad High Court. Notices were issued to the respondents through courier service on 28-5-2008 and 6-6-2008 but no body turned up on behalf of the respondents, before the respondents were served through publication in daily Khabrain on 8-9-2008. Even after the publication, the respondents did not enter appearance, therefore, they were proceeded ex parte on 8-9-2008.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the averments made in the plaint it is established that the respondents are not in possession of the disputed property and they have not prayed for consequential relief, therefore, the suit was rightly dismissed as not maintainable but the learned lower appellate Court has granted the amendment to fill in the lacuna which change the entire complexion of the suit. Learned counsel further contended that the learned lower Court has not applied its judicial mind which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner's right and exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it and acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. Learned counsel further contended that the learned lower Court has overlooked the principle laid down in proviso to section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and prayed for the acceptance of the Civil Revision with dismissal of the suit as not maintainable.
5. Arguments heard record perused.
6. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned lower appellate Court has exercised its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularities while allowing the amendment in an incompetent suit. The form of the suit is defective, therefore, the learned lower Court had no choice but to dismiss the appeal and to upheld the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. In Ahmad Din v. Muhammad Shafi and others (PLD A 1971 SC 762), the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan held as follows:-- "The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the suit could not fail merely by reason of the fact that the consequential relief by way of possession had not been claimed is not altogether without substance. If his suit was otherwise maintainable and he was otherwise entitled to the relief it was open to the Courts to allow him to amend the plaint by adding a prayer for possession and paying the appropriate ad valorem court-fees and then to grant him relief even though he had not specifically asked for it.".
' In Jane Margrete William v. Abdul Hamid Mian (1994 SCMR 1555) the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that in suit for declaration and permanent injunction addition of relief of possession of properties by way of amendment was neither alien nor inconsistent with the frame of suit. In Muhammad Shafi and others v. LDA and others (1993 CLC 2482) in view of the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Ahmad Din v. Muhammad Shafi and others (PLD 1971 SC 762) held as follows:-- "Declaratory suit on the basis of title could not be dismissed on the ground that plaintiffs were not in possession of property in question--Proper course in such case would be to allow plaintiff to amend plaint and to ask for possession. ".
' In Muhammad Ismail and others v. Roshan Ara Begum and others (PLD 2001 Lahore 28) it is observed that where form of suit was found to be defective, plaintiff ought to be first given a chance to correct the same by way of amendment in a manner what would not change the nature or complexion of the suit.
7. Respondents in their application before the learned lower appellate Court have prayed for the addition of possession as a consequential relief which is not alien or inconsistent with the frame of suit filed by them.
8. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and constantly followed by the respective. High Courts of Pakistan, the learned lower appellate Court has not committed any error and has rightly allowed amendment of the plaint. The amendment sought and allowed is consequential relief which will not change the form or complexion of the suit.
9. In view of what has been discussed above, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.