ALI BAIG, J.---Through the instant civil revision petition, the petitioner/defendants have challenged the validity of judgment/order, dated 30-9-2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Skardu whereby the learned 1st appellate court has remanded the suit of the present respondent No. 1/plaintiff to the trial court by accepting application of the present respondent No.1/plaintiff filed under Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C. for amendment in the plaint.
Brief facts of the case are that the present respondent No.1/ plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the petitioners/defendants in the trial court to the effect that the plaintiff/respondents No.1 is owner of the suit land fully described in the head note of plaint and petitioners/defendants Nos.3 to 10 are bent upon to get cancel the mutations mentioned in the head note of plaint which have been attested in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No.1, and want to construct buildings on the suit land, therefore, the defendants Nos.3 to 10/petitioners may be restrained from interfering in the suit land and cancellation of Mutations Nos. 274, 272, 4248 and 4249 attested in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No.l.
The defendants Nos. 3 to 10 resisted the suit by filing of their joint written statement in the trial court wherein they have raised certain legal objections and have also repudiated the averments made in the plaint on facts.
Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as 16 issues including the issue of relief.
After framing of issues both the parties led their respective evidence in the trial court.
On conclusion of trial the learned trial court vide judgment/decree dated 28/02/2015 has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.1.
The present respondent No.1 being aggrieved by the above mentioned judgment of trial court had filed civil 1st appeal in the court of learned Addl. District Judge Skardu.
During pendency of civil 1st appeal the present respondent No.1/plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C. in the 1st Appellate Court for certain amendment in the plaint. The learned 1st Appellate Court after obtaining reply to the said petition and hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties has allowed the application of the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed under Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C. vide impugned judgment/order dated 30/09/2015 and after allowing the aforesaid application of the respondent No.1/plaintiff, the suit was remanded back to the learned trial court for disposal afresh on merit after obtaining amended plaint.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order/judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court, the petitioners have filed the instant civil revision petition in this Court.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/ defendants contended that the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned 1st appellate court is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned 1st appellate court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that if propose amendment is allowed by maintaining the impugned judgment passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court, the nature of suit would be changed and a new cause of action would be introduced. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has filed the application under Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C. at belated stage, therefore, the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is liable to be dismissed.
On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/ plaintiff supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court by contending that the learned 1st appellate court had allowed the application of the respondent No.1/plaintiff subject the payment of cost of Rs.3000/- which has received by the defendants/ petitioners as evident from order sheet, dated 13.10.2015 maintained by the learned trial court, hence the petitioners cannot file revision petition after receipt of cost, hence this revision petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 further argued that the plaintiff wants to add the relief of declaration and possession of suit land by deleting words perpetual injunction in the plaint which does not change character of suit nor introduce any new cause of action, therefore, the learned 1st appellate court has rightly allowed the application of the respondent No.1 filed Under Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C. which may be maintained in the interest of justice and equity.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
From perusal of record it transpires that initially the plaintiff/ respondent No.1 had filed suit for perpetual injunction against the present petitioners/ defendants which was dismissed by the learned trial court. The present respondent No.1 filed civil 1st appeal in the 1st appellate court against the judgment/order of trial court in the court of Addl. District Judge, Skardu. During pendency of said civil 1st appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Skardu, the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed an application Under Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C., seeking amendment in the plaint to the extent that he wants to add words declaration and possession of suit land by deleting words perpetual injunction in the plaint. In this connection it is observed that the Superior Courts have taken into, consideration the principles for allowing or declining amendment in the pleadings Under Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C. and those are under: -
1. Amendment would be allowed at any stage of case if it did not change the cause of action of suit or nature of suit.
2. Amendment would be allowed to seek consequential relief arising from the cause of action originally included in the plaint.
3. Amendment would also be allowed to add relief available to the plaintiff even before Higher Court of jurisdiction.
4. Amendment would also be allowed for converting a suit from one relief to another i-e if suit was filed for declaration, same could be converted into possession etc. Keeping in view the above principles laid down by the Superior Courts, I have come to conclusion that the addition of relief of declaration and possession in the suit did not any manner change the character of suit or introduce any new cause of action, thus the learned 1st appellate court has rightly allowed the requisite amendment in the plaint vide impugned judgment/order under appeal.
Moreover, the petitioners/ defendants have received cost amounting to Rs.3000/- which was imposed by the learned 1st appellate court on the respondent No.1/plaintiff while allowing the petition filed Under Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C. as evident from order sheet dated 13/10/2015 maintained by the learned trial court.
For the forgoing reasons, this appeal is devoid of merits and hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Consequently the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Skardu is upheld. File.