CH. NAEEM MASOOD, J.--- Brief facts leading to this petition are that the respondent No,1 has filed a grievance petition before respondent No,2, which is pending adjudication. During the pendency of the proceedings of the grievance petition the petitioner, has filed an application for amendment of his grievance petition. The said application has been allowed vide order dated 23-6-2007 passed by respondent No,2.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner contends firstly, that the amendment sought for by respondent No,l. Introduces a new cause of action and secondly that the amendment sought for is time barred.
3. The learned counsel of respondent No,1 supports the impugned order.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record minutely.
5. The facts of the case reveal that the amendment sought for by respondent No,1 does not add to any new cause of action. It remains confined to the retrenchment of the petitioner with effect from 10-3-2006. The second point argued by the learned counsel of the petitioner that the amendment seeks to add a plea, which is a time barred, is also not tenable. The amendment has been mandated by the Honourable apex Court to be allowed quite liberally. As Order II, Rule 2 of the C.P.C. Bars another suit relatable to the same cause of action; therefore, all material relating to the cause of action should be placed before the trial Court. So far as the question of a plea being time barred is concerned, the Honourable apex Court has observed in Mst. Ghulam Bibi v. Sarsa Khan PLD 1985 SC 345, that expiry of limitation by itself when considering the question of amendment has not to be treated as bar if it is found to be necessary for the purpose of amendment. Likewise in Alam Din alias Alam Sher and 3 others v. Alam Din PLD 1990 SC (AJ&K) 1, it has been held that the delay alone in applying for amendment after expiry of the period of limitation is not a ground for refusing an amendment in the plaint. Similar is the view in Abdul Majeed v. Khalid Yasin 2002 CLC 468, wherein it has been held that amendment should not be refused by directing the plaintiff to file a suit for the relief on the cause of action which had accrued subsequent to the filing of the suit, if it was necessary for determination of the real .Question and avoiding the multiplicity of the proceedings.
6. Besides no jurisdictional error has been demonstrated in the impugned order.
7. In sequel thereof the writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.