' MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, J.---The above titled appeal is pending before this court along with another appeal titled as Basharat Ali v. Muhammad Rafique and others. Both the appeals have been consolidated. The judgment was reserved after hearing the arguments on 9-10-2013.
Meanwhile, an application was filed on behalf of the present appellant Muhammad Iqbal on 11-10- 2013 for clarification of relief sought in the suit by addition of prayer to declare the alleged gift- deed as sale-deed of the suit-land. On filing of the said application, notices were issued to the other parties for filing of objections on the said application.
2. It was stated in the application that the learned counsel for the respondents raised an objection relating to the prayer in the manner that no prayer was made in the column of relief for declaring the alleged gift-deed as sale-deed. The suit instituted by the appellant/ plaintiff Muhammad Iqbal was based on the averments made in the suit through paras 2(i), 10(ii) and also made a prayer for grant of a decree for possession of the suit-land on the basis of right of prior purchase, sold in the guise of gift-deed. It was also stated that the appellant also made prayer for consequential relief flowing from the controversy raised in the pleadings of the appellant/plaintiff. It was prayed that necessary addition in the column of relief of the plaint may be allowed to be made as under: {{URDU TEXT}} ' It was also stated through the said application that the proposed addition does not change the cause of action and nature of the suit. The proposed addition is necessary to make the relief apparent and clear.
3. The counter-appellant Basharat Ali (respondent No.7 in the present appeal) submitted objections, stating therein that the appellant Muhammad Iqbal cannot be allowed to amend his plaint to fill up the lacunas of the plaint. The nature and cause of action will be changed if the proposed addition is made. It was prayed to dismiss the said application.
4. The remaining respondents stated through their objections that the application was not maintainable in the present shape and being time-barred. The applicant/ appellant Muhammad Iqbal has got no locus standi to file the application. The amendment in the plaint will change the cause of action and nature of the suit completely. It was prayed to dismiss the application with costs.
5. Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Abdul Majeed Mallick Advocate, the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant Muhammad Iqbal argued that the appellant/ plaintiff Muhammad Iqbal has already taken this version through his plaint that the gift- deed was in fact a sale-deed and that was made only to defeat the right of prior purchase. The appellant has prayed through the suit to grant a decree for possession of the suit land on the basis of right of prior purchase, sold in the guise of gift-deed for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 including the prayer for consequential relief flowing from the controversy raised through the pleadings. Now, the appellant/plaintiff wants to clarify the prayer clause only to the extent of his version already mentioned in the plaint. It was further argued by the learned counsel that an amendment application in the pleadings can be filed at any stage of the proceedings. The amendment application can be allowed at any time and even can be granted by the Supreme Court. The learned counsel requested to allow the said application and referred the following precedents in support of his arguments.
' PLD 1990 SC (AJ&K) 01 1999 YLR 1511
6. While controverting the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant Muhammad Iqbal, Mr. Muhammad Ayub Sabir Advocate, the learned counsel for the counter-appellant contended that the amendment application has been filed only to fill up the lacunas in the plaint. If the proposed amendment is allowed, it will change the cause of action and nature of the suit. The learned counsel requested to dismiss the said application.
' Ch. Muhammad Mumtaz Advocate, the learned counsel for the remaining respondents owned the arguments advanced by the learned counsel Mr. Muhammad Ayub Sabir Advocate and argued further that the amendment application has been filed very late and beyond the period of limitation. The appellant Muhammad Iqbal did not file his amendment application before the courts below. A valuable right has been accrued to the opposite party, so the proposed amendment cannot be allowed to affect the said right. The learned counsel requested to dismiss the application and referred the following precedents in support of his arguments.
' PLD 1985 Lah. 630, 1992 SCR 265, 1997 CLC 1768, 1999 CLC 1146 and 2007 SCMR 1275.
7. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record carefully and perused the precedents referred minutely in the light of facts of the present case. The application for addition in the prayer clause is in fact an amendment application. The record reveals that the applicant/appellant Muhammad Iqbal has taken this version in his suit that the gift-deed was in fact a sale-deed and was made only to defeat the right of prior purchase. The disputed land was sold against a price of Rs. 2,50,000. This version has been mentioned in paras 2(i) and 10(ii) of the plaint. A prayer has also been made fora decree for possession of the suit land on the basis of right of prior purchase. The applicant/appellant has also prayed for consequential relief regarding the controversy. So, a decree to the extent that the impugned gift-deed was in fact a sale-deed can also be granted on the basis of the present prayer clause. The appellant has filed the application to clarify the prayer clause while adding the proposed amendment. The record reveals that the issues were also framed regarding the version of the applicant/appellant to the extent that whether the gift-deed was in fact sale-deed? Both the parties have produced evidence on the said controversy. It is an admitted principle of law that amendment in the pleadings can be granted at any stage in the proceedings provided such amendment can only be allowed for resolution of the real question in controversy. This principle has been laid down in the precedent PLD 1990 SC (AJ&K)
1. It has also been observed in the said precedent that the delay in applying for amendment after expiry of the period of limitation is not a ground for refusing an amendment in the plaint. It is an important condition for allowing any amendment application that nature of the suit in so far its cause of action is not changed by such amendment. It has also been held in the precedent 1999 YLR 1511 that amendment application could be allowed at any stage of the proceedings and could even be granted by the Supreme Court.
' The - applicant/appellant has proposed the amendment only to clarify the prayer clause of the plaint. The said proposed amendment is regarding the version which has already been endorsed through the contents of the plaint. So, the cause of action and the nature of the suit do not change at all while granting the said amendment. No need is required to frame any additional issue or to produce evidence regarding the proposed amendment, because the parties have already produced evidence on the same version. The proposed amendment is necessary for resolution of real question in controversy. The applicant/ appellant has a right to file the amendment application at any stage of the proceedings. The facts of the precedents referred by the learned counsel for the respondents have no conformity with the facts of the present matter.
' Having in view the above-mentioned circumstances, the application for amendment in the prayer clause of the plaint filed by the present applicant/ appellant is allowed. The applicant/ appellant is directed to file the amended plaint before this court. There is no justification for remanding the case to the trial court as the amendment has been granted only to clarify the version of the applicant. Both the appeals shall be placed before this court for fresh arguments on (sic).