' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.-This civil, revision is directed against the impugned order dated 13-9- 2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge lst Class, Lahore, whereby he accepted the application under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151, C.P.C.
2. With the concurrence of learned counsel for the parties, this case is treated as admitted case.
' Brief facts necessary for disposal of this civil revision are to the effect that, the respondents (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit for possession and mesne profit on 13-1-1998. Written statement was filed by the petitioner (defendant) in the suit on 6-10-1998. Issues were framed on 12-3-20014. Additional issues were framed on 11-2-2002. During pendency of civil suit, Punjab Ordinance No,XXXl of 1999 DHA Lahore, 1999 was promulgated; whereafter, Lahore Cantt, Cooperative Authority was dissolved for establishment of DHA in the area. DHA was constituted by Federal Government by Chief Executive Order No,26 of 2002 on 19-9-2002. Before that, an application under Order Vll, Rule 11 read with section 151, C.P.C, was dismissed on 14-7-2000. Civil revision filed against that order was also disposed of on 7-2-2007. On 20-3-2007, application under Order 1, Rule 1 C.P.C, made by respondent No,8 was accepted. Amended plaint was submitted on 22-7-2003 by adding her as defendant. On 14-3-2003, written statement was filed by respondent No,8. The evidence of plaintiff was closed on 24-4-2006, where, as, evidence of petitioner/defendant was closed on 27-2-2007 and the case was fixed for arguments on 28-4-2007. On this date, application seeking amendment in paragraph No,5 of the plaint and in the prayer clause was filed. Reply to which was filed on 25-5- 2007. The learned Civil Judge, vide impugned order dated 13-9-2007 granted the application, hence, this civil revision.
' It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, no solid and cogent reasons have been given by the trial Court for accepting application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. The impugned order has been passed without application of judicial independent, unbiased and conscious mind. The discretion, if any has been exercised in an arbitrary and fapciful manner, and not in accordance with law enunciated by the superior Courts. Further submits that, cause of action in the suit claiming possession and mesne profit accrued on 10-1993, whereas, suit was filed on 1-1998. The learned trial Court erred in entertaining application made cm 4-2007, after inordinate delay of more than nine years since institution of proceedings. The application is misconceived and suffers from- estoppel, waiver and laches and is liable to be rejected. The plaintiffs-respondents having intentionally omitted off sue in respect of land measuring 34-Kanals, 4-marlas. They have abandoned and relinquished such portion of the claim within the meaning of Order II Rule 2 C.P.C, and any addition of such claim in the prayer clause at this stage, when evidence of both the parties had already been recorded and the case was almost riped for pronouncement of judgment, was against the well established canons of justice and the principles of fairplay. Argued that, the learned trial Court has also acted illegally in holding that,omission of land measuring 34- Kanals, 4-Marlas, bearing specific Khasra Numbers in the prayer clause was a clerical mistake, which could not be supposed to obstruct the dispensation of justice. Further submits that, no period of limitation for making application for leave to amend the pleadings having been provided by any specific Article of the Limitation Act, residuary Article 181 of the Act prescribing a period of three years from the time, when the right to apply accrues is fully applicable in the case, finally argued that, no subsequent event necessitating making of application seeking permission to amend the plaint made for- expiry of long year is liable to be rejected. '
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents opposed this revision petition by arguing that, the suit for possession and mesne profit was filed on 13-1-1998 with the prayer as under:- "Therefore it is most respectfully prayed that a decree with costs for the possession of land comprising Khasra No,414(6-14), 415(5-15), 443X5-0), 444(14-0), 445(14-4) 446(20-5) and also bearing Plot Nos. 131, 132, 133, 144, 145 (totally), 75 to 127, 141 to 147, 193 to 197 (Partially), Block *P* of L.C.C.H.S: Lahore Cantt. 42 to 60, 74 to 176(sic), 176, 177, 178, 202, 203, 204, 207, 208, 209 (Totally), 40, 41, 42, 50, 51, 61, 62, 63, 70 to 73, 77, 78 (Partially), Block 'M' of C.C.H.C, Lahore Cantt. 43, 45, 125, 205, 206, 239 (Totally), 38, 39, 240 to 243 (Partially) Block 'L' of L.C.C.H.S. Lahore Cantt. Of the scheme of the defendant shown and described in the plaint attached with the plaint and for recovery of compensation @ of 5,000 per Kanal per month w.e.f, 13-6-1991 till the delivery of the possession to the plaintiffs be passed in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant."
' Submits that, initially defendant No,l Lahore Cantt., Cooperative Housing Society was registered as a Society under the provisions of the Societies Act, 1925 and has been operating and acting under the said name and style. At the time of filing of this suit, defendant No,1's description was correctly given as it was available at that time. Further submits that subsequently, under the Defence Housing Authority Act, the Defence Housing Authority was constituted and all the rights, assets and liabilities of the defendant No,l were taken over and vested in the said Authority, therefore, under the changed circumstances, defendant No,l is to be substituted by "Defence Housing Authority through its Secretary" instead of "Lahore Cantt. Cooperative Housing Society, etc." Further submits that, due to typographical mistake in para. 13 of the plaint in column "Khasra No," against the plaintiff No,5, Khasra No,443 (5-0) is omitted, which belongs to the plaintiff No,5. In the same manner, in the prayer elapse after the figures and words "415 (5 Kanals 15 Marlas), Khasra No,416 (20 Kanals 0 Marla), after the figure 444, this figure (14 Kanals) 445 is missed due to typing mistake.
Argued that, addition of all these Khasra Numbers would neither change the character of the suit nor its cause of action and the said amendment is necessary for just decision of the rights of the parties, under controversy, of the suit. Relying on Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others v. Sarsa Khan and others (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 345), it is argued that, delay alone in applying for amendment or expiry of period of limitation or increase in court-fee and change of jurisdiction would not be a ground for refusing amendment in plaint. Further submits that, amendment of expression used in Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C, is not without significance. The word "proceedings" has been interpreted in a liberal manner so as to give a proper scope to rule in accordance with its purpose, as including appellate stage and that too up to the Supreme Court. Submits that, the petitioner has sought amendment at the trial stage, whereas, amendment has been allowed by the superior Courts even at the stage of Honourable Supreme Court, when evidence of the parties had been recorded and finding on the same has been given by the Courts below. Submits that, all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy.
Argued that, once Court decides that, amendment is necessary for said purpose of determining real question, Court is required by law not only to allow application made by a party in that behalf but also bound to direct amendment for said purpose subject to condition that nature of such, so far as its cause of action concerned, is not changed by amendment whether it falls under first Part of Rule 17 or in second Part of Order VI, C.P.C. Submits that, in the instant case, replacing the name of Lahore Cantt. Cooperative Housing Society, Lahore with Defence Housing Authority, has been duly constituted, therefore, under the changed circumstances, defendant No,l would be substituted by the Defence Housing Authority. Further submits that, due to typographical mistake, some Khasra Numbers were omitted, which is not denied by the respondents that, said Khasra Numbers do not belong to the plaintiffs and were not taken over by the petitioners. The objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is hyper-technical objection and it is settled law that, rights of parties shall be decided on merits and not to be jeopardized or hindered by the technicalities of law, therefore, this revision being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents annexed with this revision petition and the case-law cited on the subject.
6. As observed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others v.
Sarsa Khan and others (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 345) that, generally delay alone in applying for amendment or expiry of period of limitation or increase in court-fee and change of jurisdiction would not be a ground for refusing amendment in plaint. As discussed above, while narrating the facts of the case, substance of claim of respondent No,l as Defence Housing Authority would not, in any manner, change the nature of the suit nor would change the cause of action. As argued by learned counsel for the respondents that, the amendment sought by the respondents would not change the nature of the suit. Insofar as its cause of action is concerned, same would also not be changed by the amendment, whether it falls in lst part of rule 17 or 2nd part. The suit filed for possession and mesne profits would remain the same. The cause of action would remain the same. Only addition of few Khasra Numbers would increase the volume of the land, owned by the respondents Defence Housing Authority.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out as to how the cause of action would change by addition of present amendment or as to how the nature of suit would change. The only main objection was that, the application for amendment in the suit was filed at a belated stage, when a right accrued to the petitioner vis-a-vis question of limitation, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case cited above, if the cause of action does not change, main substance of the suit and the nature of the suit would not be changed, thus, question of limitation would then remain only not of substance and for this reason, amendment in plaint, is permissible if otherwise necessary notwithstanding possibility that on account of some formal change, question of limitation might have acquired pronounced importance, had it not been a case of amendment.
8. Another aspect, which has been discussed by the Honourable Supreme Court, while allowing amendment in that case was regarding the effect of Order II Rule 2 C.P.C, in so far as the refusal to allow proper amendment, would not be out of place. It was observed that, "Often an application for amendment is opposed on the ground that, it would introduce a new element in the case as distinguished from a new cause of action or a new case altogether. It was further observed that, in so far as the new cause of action and a new suit is concerned that, cannot be permitted to be introduced in the garb of amendment, but regarding the introduction of a new or different element, which by itself does not constitute a different cause of action or a new suit it would be in accord with the provisions contained in Order II Rule 2 C.P.C, which provides that, "every suit shall include the whole of the claim, which the plaintiff is entitled to make the respect of the cause of action. "
' Further observed that, where the plaintiff omits to sue in respect of or intentionally relinquishes any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.
' It was observed that, a person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits except, with the leave of the Courts, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted. If a genuine amendment which is permissible, should otherwise, be liberally allowed in view of the principles highlighted above and the denial would create enormous difficulties for the applicant".
9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that, no jurisdictional infirmity, illegality or irregularity of procedure or perversity of reasoning on the part of the learned Court below has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner so as to warrant interference in the matter by this Court through exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This petition is, therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.