' CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.---Brief facts of the case are that that respondent No.1 filed a suit for cancellation of document with permanent and consequential relief. On 15-2-2007 written statement was filed by the petitioner/defendant. During the pendency of the suit respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151, C.P.C. For adding the following phrase in the prayer clause of the plaint.
"It is further that possession of property in dispute may also be handed over to the plaintiff as consequential relief".
' The claim of the respondent was that, when the suit was filed by the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property but during the pendency of the suit he was dispossessed due to which.
Amendment in the plaint was sought. Written reply was filed by the petitioner in the said application. Learned trial court after hearing the arguments of both the sides at length accepted the application of the plaintiff vide order dated 18-2-2010. Feeling aggrieved by the said order petitioner has filed the instant Civil Revision.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. It is settled law that amendments claimed changing nature or complexion of the suit or introducing new cause of action cannot be allowed but in the instant case learned trial court has oversighted this important aspect of the case. Admittedly respondent No.1 filed a suit for cancellation of document and during the pendency of the suit he filed an application for amendment in the plaint. The contention of the respondent that when the suit was filed he was in possession of the suit property and during the pendency of suit he was dispossessed has no force because he has not produced any document in this regard to show that ever he has been remained in possession of the property in dispute. After hearing the arguments of both the parties and perusal of record I am of the considered view that through the purposed amendment petitioner seeks possession of the property as consequential relief and if such amendment is allowed the suit would be treated as suit for recovery of possession and in this way the proposed amendment will definitely change the nature of the suit. The fundamental character of the suit including the subject-matter and cause of action cannot be allowed to be substituted through the purposed amendment. Reliance can be placed upon PLD 2005 Supreme Court 787. Learned trial court has committed illegality and material irregularity while passing the impugned order.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the instant Civil Revision is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned trial court dated 18-2-2010 is set aside.