1. CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J.--- The facts necessitated for the disposal of the instant writ petition are that respondent No.1 (Abid Mughal) filed a suit for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs.25,00,000 on the ground that the petitioner/NHA had demolished his residential house situated in land bearing Khewat No.245, Khatooni No.343, Khasra No.2. The petitioners/defendants resisted the said suit by filing their written statement. Due to the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the issues and fixed the Case for evidence of the plaintiff/respondent No.1. In the meanwhile the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. for the amendment of the plaint. The petitioners/defendants contested the said application and the learned trial Court was pleased to dismiss the said application vide his order dated 6-4-2010. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a civil revision before the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi. The revisional court conducted ex parte proceedings against the petitioner on 6-10-2010 and allowed the civil revision vide order dated 15- 10-2010 and also accepted the application for amendment of plaint through the said order. The petitioners assailed the said order before the said learned Additional District Judge by filing an application for setting aside ex parte order dated 15-10-2010, which has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, vide order dated 12-3-2011. The petitioners have assailed the orders dated 12-3-2011, 15-10-2010 and 6-10-2010.
2. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the impugned orders are illegal, void and coram non judice. He further submitted that the learned Additional District Judge/revisional court passed the impugned orders in violation of principle of natural justice and fundamental rights of the petitioner. He further submitted that the order dated 12-3-2011 of dismissing the application of the petitioners for setting aside order of ex parte proceedings and ex parte final order is sheer violation of law. His next submissions is that the revisional court failed to examine the report of Process Server as well as the postal receipt regarding the address of the petitioners and respondent No.1 fraudulently procured the ex parte order against the petitioners before the revisional court.
3. 3.Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. 4.The respondent No.l/plaintiff sought amendment in his plaint by filing application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. which is on file as Annexure-C. The proposed amendment in para No.1 of the plaint is reproduced hereunder:--- "That plaintiff is owner in possession of land measuring 12 Marlas out of total land measuring 42 Kanals, 16 Marlas bearing Khewat No.245, Khatooni No.343, Khasra No.2 Qittas land measuring 1 kanal out of total land measuring 301 Kanals, 7 Marlas bearing Khewat No.284, Khatooni Nos.401 to 417 Qitta 23 situated in the revenue estate of Village Barra Hotar, Tehsil Murree, District Rawalpindi."
5. 5.The learned trial Court vide his order dated 6-4-2010 dismissed the said application filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1. The operative para of order dated 6-4-2010 passed by the learned trial Court is reproduced hereunder:--- "Plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs.25 lacs as damages against the defendants which is pending since 2007, it is a suit for damages and amendment in the plaint regarding any property will not effect the real contention and dispute between the parties, as it is suit for damages, issues have already been framed on 15-12-2008 and final and last opportunity to the plaintiff for production of evidence has already been granted, so at this stage, this application is not maintainable as it is old one direction case, so the application for amendment in the plaint is hereby dismissed. Plaintiff is directed to produce his entire evidence on 11-5-2010."
6. 6.Sorry to say that the learned trial Court passed a fanciful order while dismissing the application of the respondent/plaintiff in a clandestine manner. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate the provisions regarding amendment of pleadings i.e. Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. and dismissed the said application on the assumption that plaintiff/respondent No.1 has availed many opportunity to adduce the evidence, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is not entitled for the amendment of his plaint. The said verdict is not according to the mandate of Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. The application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. can only be dismissed on the ground if the proposed amendmentchangesthenatureorcomplexionofplaint/written statement.
7. 7.It will be enough to say that the lower courts must adhere to the agonies of general public which are being caused by such like order as mentioned supra. The proceedings and the orders of the Judiciary should not be shorn of the sanction of social justice, law and morality. It must be added that from the creation of Judicial System and especially now-a-days after the restoration of our Higher Judiciary, the courts of law in our society have been strengthened much lot and when such a pedestal is available to the Judiciary, then learned courts below are bound to pay the attention to dispense with the justice after applying judicious mind, because it is the basic mandate of law that justice should be administered. Thus, it is obvious and clear that no court in the country has jurisdiction to decide about the rights of the parties wrongly or in sheer violation of law and the courts have no exception to the said rule. Such like orders are meant to prolong the litigation which cannot be recommended by any court of law. The illegality and material irregularity committed by the learned trial court has very rightly been corrected by the learned revisional court in true spirit of law by allowing the revision petition filed by the plaintiff/respondent and also by accepting his application filed under Order VI, Rule 7, C.P.C. for the amendment of the plaint. The case cannot be remanded merely for the reason that the petitioners/defendants were not heard by the learned revisional court while passing the impugned order as the learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to make out the case even before this court that the proposed amendment will change the nature or complexion of the plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff.
8. 8.The findings of the learned Additional District Judge are based on proper appraisal of law and do not call for any interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this court. This writ petition is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. The learned trial Court should decide the suit expeditiously.