' ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.---The petitioner has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 to impugn the order dated 18-1-2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khanpur whereby respondent's revision petition was accepted and his application for amendment in the plaint regarding change of nomenclature of the respondent a registered Organization was allowed while setting aside the order dated 14-7-2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Khanpur whereby sought for amendment was declined.
2. The facts leading to this petition are that Anjuman Madrassa Arabia Jamia Farooqia (Registered) through its Manager lodged a suit for specific performance against Mushtaq Ahmad petitioner on 4-1-1997. It was contested by the petitioner through written statement. After framing of the issues arising out of divergent pleadings of the parties and recording of their evidence the case was at the stage of final arguments on 22-2-2005 when an application under Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C. For amendment in the plaint was lodged by the respondent with the contentions that the matter with regard to fresh registration of the Madarassa was pending before the competent Authority which has been duly resolved and a certificate of registration dated 4-3-2004 has been issued by the competent authority whereby respondent/plaintiff's nomenclature has been changed as "Anjuman Jamia Madni Masjid and Madrassa Jamia Farooqia" through its Manager Maulana Ghulam Madni.
It was prayed that the respondent/plaintiff be allowed to incorporate its new name as per registration certificate ificate dated 4-3-2004 through amendment in the plaint in order to avoid any future complications. The petitioner resisted the said application with the contentions that registration of the "Anjuman Madrassa Arabia Jamia Farooqia" is still in his name and that the proposed amendment if allowed would change the nature of the suit. The petition for amendment in the plaint was declined by the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 14-7-2005 which was assailed through the revision petition before the learned Additional District Judge. The revision petition was accepted through the impugned order and the amendment was allowed, hence this petition.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proposed amendment is likely to change the nature of tl suit therefore the impugned order passed by the learned revisional Court is against law and facts and liable to be set aside.
4. It is resisted by the learned counsel for the respondent with the contentions that be mere change in the nomenclature of he respondent a duly registered Orgaii ation is not likely to change the nature or form of the suit and that proposed amendment is lawfully allowed by the revisional court to avoid future complications.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. At the out set it will be expedient to reproduce the relevant provision of Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as below:-- "17. Amendment of pleadings.--- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and , all such amendments shall be made as may be between the parties."
7. Bare reading of the afore-quoted provision of law transpires that the court has got an authority to allow, either party to amend his pleadings if the proposed amendments is just and necessary to resolve real question of controversy between the parties. An amendment likely to change the form or nature of the suit or to introduce the new cause of action is not ordinarily permitted as a matter of principle. In the light of the above quoted principle and provision of law it is crystal clear that the proposed amendment seeking change of nomenclature according to the registration certificate dated 4-3-2004 duly issued by the competent authority is not likely to change the nature or form of the suit. It also does not amount to introduce a new cause of action. It cannot be gainsaid that the courts have always been inclined to allow leave to amend the pleadings liberally to enable the parties to bring all points relating to a dispute, between the parties before the court so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings or future complications if considered just and necessary to resolve real matter in controversy at any stage of the lis to ensure proper administration of justice except in the cases where distinct cause of action to be substituted for another or to change the form, nature or subject matter of the suit.
8. In the instant case, since the proposed amendment is not likely to attract the exceptions mentioned above, therefore the learned revisional Court has rightly granted the permission sought for by to the respondent. I do not find any factual or legal infirmity and unlawful exercise of authority in the impugned order passed by the learned revisional court. Petitioner has no case to seek interference in the impugned order by invoking the Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court.
This writ petition having no merit is therefore dismissed.