' MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKANZAI, J.--- Following relief has been claimed in the instant Constitutional petition:- "It is therefore, respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble (sic) court may kindly be pleased to set.
Aside the impugned order and restore the order passed by learned trial Court, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play."
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the instant Constitutional petition are that the respondent No,2, instituted a suit for possession through pre-emption against the respondents Nos.1, 3 to 14 and petitioner in the Court of Senior Civil Judge-I, Pishin. The suit was contested by the petitioner by way of filing written statement wherein besides raising certain preliminary legal objections the claim of the respondent No,2, was repudiated on merits as well. After filing written statement by the petitioner, the respondent No,2 filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17 read with section 151, C.P.C. The said application was contested by the petitioner by way of filing rejoinder to the same.
The learned trial Court after hearing the parties rejected the application vide order dated 30th November, 2011. The order passed by the trial Court was challenged before the learned District Judge by respondent No,2 by way of filing revision petition. The latter vide order dated 19th October, 2012 allowed the revision petition and accepted the application allowing the respondent No,2 to amend the suit, hence instant constitutional petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who argued that the learned revisional court had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order because valuation of the subject-matter is Rs,29,00,000 (Rupees twenty nine lacs). It was further maintained that the revisional court being incompetent could not have entertained the revision petition, therefore, the judgment passed by the revisional court is not sustainable under the law. It was further submitted that even otherwise factually the amendment introduced by the respondent/plaintiff could not have been allowed for the simple reason that the plaintiff/respondent unequivocally, in his plaint determined the value according to the sale price so mentioned in the Revenue Record. According to the plaintiff he has offered payment of Rs,29,00,000 (Rupees twenty nine lacs) so this unqualified stance of the plaintiff creates a legal bar upon the plaintiff and he cannot be permitted to raise another plea which runs contrary to the factual aspect of the matter though the stance of respondent/plaintiff has been denied by the petitioner.
' On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents strenuously opposed the petition and argued that the revisional court rightly exercised jurisdiction as the valuation clause was doubtful in view of the facts narrated in the amended application. It was further maintained that once an amendment was allowed by a Court, the higher courts are always reluctant to interfere with such a discretionary order.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case minutely. In our considered opinion the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner have got sufficient force. Admittedly, the valuation clause of the plaint was Rs,29,00,000 (Rupees twenty nine lacs) and the petitioner has affixed maximum court-fee. We have no doubt in our mind that since value of the suit property is beyond the jurisdiction of the District Judge, therefore, the revision petition filed before the District Judge, Pishin was not competent. Without prejudice to the above legal proposition, even otherwise factually the amendment allowed by the revisional court is not permissible because if the revisional order is allowed to prevail, complexion of the suit would be changed qua sale consideration of the property in dispute. The plaintiff in unequivocal term has made a statement in the plaint expressing his willingness to pay Rs,29,00,000 (Rupees twenty nine lacs) to the petitioner as sale consideration of the property. In the plaint plaintiff has never disputed sale price and after making unqualified statement regarding readiness to pay Rs,29,00,000 (Rupees twenty nine lacs), could not have sought a vague amendment. The plaintiff cannot blow hot and cold simultaneously and the controversial amendment is hit by the principle of approbate and reprobate. Furthermore; the amendment so sought and allowed is not only vague and uncertain rather meaningless, if, such amendment is allowed it will result in an everlasting litigation between the parties.
' In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the order impugned herein is illegal, unlawful and passed without jurisdiction, as such; the Constitutional petition is accepted. Order dated 19th October, 2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Pishin is set aside and the application filed by the respondent No,2 for amendment is hereby dismissed.