' MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, J.---This revision petition has been filed against the order of Senior Civil Judge Kotli dated 6-6-2012, through which an application for amendment submitted by the respondent/plaintiff Karamat Khan was allowed.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the respondent/plaintiff Karamat Khan filed a suit for declaration against the present petitioner and pro forma respondents in the court of Senior Civil Judge Kotli. During pendency of the suit, the respondent/plaintiff Karamat Khan filed an application for amendment in the suit. The present petitioner and pro forma respondents submitted objections. The learned Senior Civil Judge Kotli allowed the said amendment application. Hence, the instant revision petition.
3. Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Mallick Muhammad Mansha Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the facts which were brought on record through the said amendment could be placed on record while filing the suit. The learned Senior Civil Judge Kotli has not recorded his findings in accordance with the facts and provisions of law. The learned counsel requested to accept the revision petition.
4. While controverting the learned counsel for the petitioners, Kh. Abdul Basit Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the facts brought on record through the amendment were necessary for disposal of the controversy. The nature of the suit does not change at all due to the said amendment. The learned counsel requested to dismiss the instant revision petition. Sardar Ghulam Mustafa Khan Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents owned the arguments advanced by Kh. Abdul Basit Advocate.
5. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record minutely. The record reveals that the learned counsel for the petitioners did not A mention the facts, which were brought on record through the amendment in the suit. The learned counsel could not justify his version that the said facts were in the knowledge of the plaintiff at the time of filing the suit or the said facts were in existence at that time. It is astonishing that some Advocates prefer revision petitions in the High Court instead of filing before the District Judge of the District. One District Judge and two Additional District Judges are performing their functions in District Kotli. Instead of filing the revision petitions before District Judges, if someone prefers to file a revision petition before High Court, it shows the intention of prolonging the controversy. The revision petitions should be filed before the District Judges, although this court has got powers to hear the revision petitions as well.
' Having in view the above-mentioned circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Senior Civil Judge Kotli need no, indulgence by this court. The B instant revision petition stands dismissed with no order as to the costs.