' SARDAR MUHAMMAD SADIQ KHAN, J.--- The supra titled appeal, with the leave of the Court, is tiled against the judgment of the High Court dated 18-11-2011, whereby the civil revision filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 against the order of District Judge Mirpur dated 10-6-2010, has been accepted.
2. The summary of facts necessary for disposal of this appeal is that respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration-cum-perpetual injunction in the Court of-the District Judge Mirpur, During pendency of appeal, an application for seeking amendment in the suit was moved by the plaintiffs- respondents, upon which the defendants-appellants, herein, filed objections and opposed the application. The learned District Judge Mirpur, after hearing the parties dismissed the application. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs-respondents, herein, filed a revision petition before the learned High Court and the learned High Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties accepted the revision petition, hence this appeal.
3. Ch. Muhammad Younus Arvi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant, after brief summary of facts strongly opposed the order of the High Court and argued that the order of the High Court is against law and facts of the case on the ground that the averments made in the amendment application are at the most a piece of evidence and nothing more and the respondents filed the application for amendment in the suit only to prolong the litigation. He further argued that the amendment application is based on an affidavit sworn in by defendant No,4, whereas the same is not on the file. Moreover, an amendment cannot be allowed on the basis of facts already pleaded in the suit. He next argued that the Hon'ble High Court has misinterpreted the law regarding amendment in pleadings, and precedents of the superior Court while passing the impugned order. He lastly submitted that the Hon'ble Judge in the High Court has not properly applied its judicial mind and accepted the revision petition without assigning any valid reason, hence the order of the High Court is not maintainable.
4. Conversely, Mr. Muhammad Riaz Tabassum, Advocate the learned counsel for the respondents, forcefully defended the impugned order and argued that the trial Court refused the application, which is quite contrary to the facts of the case and the learned High Court has rightly passed the impugned order. He further argued that no plausible and cogent reason has been shown in the appeal. He lastly argued that the appellant has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned order, therefore, the appeal merits dismissal.
5. We have considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. In the amendment application, the plaintiffs-respondents demonstrated that after filing of suit some important events have been occurred. Defendant NO.4 through an affidavit has disclosed hat he refused to purchase the disputed plot being its illegal alienation and in this way he suffered a loss of Rs,1500000/- and after getting his statement recorded, he got the plot transferred in the name of respondent No,5. This affidavit supports the version of the plaintiffs- respondents. The plaintiffs-respondents further averred in the amendment application that their father as paid the bills of water of the house constructed on the disputed plot till June, 2008 and respondent No,7 demolished the house being illegal alienation and started its new construction for which he was not competent to do so. The defendants-appellant filed objections on the amendment application' wherein it is alleged that the application for amendment is not filed within time and the proposed amendment is uncalled for. Firstly, the bills of water and electricity were being paid by defendants Nos.l. To 3 and now the same are being paid by defendant No,7.
Defendant No,4 was made a party for the purpose that he will submit his version before the Court and then the plaintiffs may take the benefit from his statement in support of their version. The trial Court appreciated the version of the defendant-appellant that if respondent No,4, in support of the version of the plaintiffs-respondents, has given any affidavit, they may got his statement recorded before the Court. Moreover, respondent No,4 himself got an opportunity of recording his version being in the line of defendants and in this way both the parties can provide the respective receipts of the bills of water and electricity in the Court as documentary evidence. The trial Court dismissed the application for amendment and allowed to annex with the record the relevant receipts of bills.
Whereas, the learned High Court accepted the revision petition on the ground that an amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings under the provision of Order VI, Rule 17 of C.P.C. A cursory view of the amendment application reveals that the respondents, herein through amendment application wanted to place on record the bills of water in support of their version. For this purpose they had to file an application for placing on record the bills but despite this they filed application for amendment in the plaint, which was not the requirement under law. It may be observed that under the statutory provision i,e, Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C., the amendment in the pleadings can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings in the suit if the Court comes to the conclusion that the amendment sought for is necessary for just decision of the case and by allowing amendment, the nature and complexion of the suit is not changed and a new cause of action is not created. This Court as well as the Supreme Court of Pakistan in numerous judgments have held that A where in the opinion of the Court the proposed amendment is necessary to resolve the controversy involved in the suit and while allowing amendment structure of the suit is not changed and new cause of action is not created then the amendment is allowed and where the complexion of the suit is changed or a new cause of action is created, the Courts have refused to allow the amendment. In new era, the Courts are liberal to allow the amendment in the pleadings, however, where the Court is of the opinion that without allowing amendment the just decision in the case can be made, the amendment is disallowed. The District Judge has rightly held that the plaintiffs-respondent failed to produce any relevant document in support of amendment application but despite this the learned District Judge allowed them to place on record copies of bills. The learned Judge of the High Court has not perused the record and the order passed by the learned Judge High Court seems to have been passed in a hasty manner, which is not maintainable, therefore, whiled setting aside the order of the learned Judge High Court dated 18-11-2011, we restore the order dated 10-6-2010 passed by the learned District Judge Mirpur.
' This appeal is accepted in term listed above.