' MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.--- Order dated 25-03-2015 that the learned first appellate court Hunza- Nagar, passed in CFA No.82/2013, has been challenged through this petition.
2. Petitioner/Plaintiff filed Civil Suit (C.S. No.55/12) in the Civil Court of Civil Judge 1st Class Nagar.
The suit is simply for recovery of Rs.44000/- as price of 11 bags of walnut fruit of the years 2011 and 2012. From plain perusal of plaint of the suit, it is evident that petitioner/plaintiff sought two remedies, one for recovery of the suit amount and the second for permanent injunction against the respondent/defendant to the effect that the respondent be restrained from removing fruit of one tree of walnut through use of force or stealthily. Learned trial court obtained written statement from the respondent/ defendant, framed issues and completed all trial proceedings, entailing to dismissal of the suit through order/judgment dated 08-11-2013. Feeling aggrieved from the same, petitioner/plaintiff filed appeal (CFA No.82/2013) in the District Court of Hunza/Nagar. During pendency of the said appeal, petitioner/plaintiff filed two applications, one under Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C., seeking filing of some documents, while 2016] Wise Communication System (Pvt.) Ltd. v.
Federation of another under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C., seeking some amendments in the plaint' of suit.
Through order dated 25-03-2015, the learned first appellate court allowed the application of petitioner/plaintiff for filing the documents but dismissed the application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C.
3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have thoughtfully considered arguments of parties pro and contra the petition in hand. Learned counsel for petitioner was of the view that the amendments sought did not change the complexion of the suit, therefore, were required to be allowed. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent argued that filing of all documents, including statements of the parties and the witnesses with this petition, is a requirement of law and petitioner did not file statements of the parties as well as their witnesses, therefore, petition in hand is fit to be rejected or dismissed.
4. I have gone through the relevant law on my own and have come to the conclusion that the petition for amendment is not necessary for correct decision of the case. In my opinion, the suit in hand is simply a money suit for recovery of price of 11 bags of walnut fruit of a walnut tree for the years 2011 and 2012. Through amendment sought, petitioner did not apply for any change or amendment in the two reliefs of plaint. Moreover, from plain perusal of para No.2 of parawise written statement, it is abundantly clear that the amendment sought through the petition for amendment, is averred in the said para, but petitioner/ plaintiff did not apply for any amendment in the plaint till final disposal of the suit.
5. In the sequel of above discussion, I am of the view that petitioner/plaintiff failed to point out any defect in the impugned order, therefore, I dismiss this petition. Petition is dismissed. This file be consigned to record.