ALI BAIL, J.---This civil revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners againstthe impugned judgment/order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class No,1 Gilgit whereby the learned trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioners/ plaintiffs filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. for amendment in the plaint.
2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of this revision petition are that the present petitioners/plaintiffs instituted a suit of recovery for Rs.20,23,500/- against the respondents/defendants in the trial court.
3. The present respondents being defendants in the suit contested the suit by way of filing of written statement in the trial court.
4. During pendency of suit the present petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI rule 17 C.P.C. for some amendments in the plaint. The respondents/defendants contested the aforesaid application by filing replication. The learned trial court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has dismissed the petition of the petitioners filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. Hence this revision petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf the petitioners/plaintiffs contended that the impugned order/judgment passed by the learned trial court is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the petitioners have sought minor/slight amendment in their plaint through an application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. and if the proposed amendment in the plaint is allowed neither nature of suit nor cause of action would be changed rather it would help the trial court to arrive at just and fair conclusion. The learned counsel for petitioners further argued that suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs is at initial stage as the parties have not led/ recorded their evidence, therefore, the application filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.
6. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General G.B vehemently opposed this petition by contending that Secretary Defence is necessary party to the suit but the petitioners/plaintiffs have failed to implead Secretary Defence as defendant in the suit, therefore, the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The learned Additional Advocate General G.B. further argued that if proposed amendment in the plaint is allowed, the nature of suit and cause of action would be changed, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the petition of the petitioners filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record particularly contents of petition filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. for amendment in the plaint.
8. A Perusal of the contents of application filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. by the petitioners it reveals that the petitioners/plaintiffs have sought minor amendment in the plaint on the basis of same/original cause of action.
9. Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. empowers the court to allow amendment at any stage of the proceedings for fair and just decision of the case. The technicalities are to be avoided. In the present case the petitioners/plaintiffs have sought some amendment on the basis of original cause of action accrued to the petitioners/plaintiffs at the time of filing of suit. I have perused the contents of application filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. by the petitioners very carefully with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs. Accordingly I am of the firmed view that if proposed amendment is allowed, neither nature of the suit would be changed nor a fresh cause of action would be introduced rather it would help the trial court to arrive at just and fair conclusion/decision.
10. The learned Additional Advocate General G.B mainly emphasized that since Secretary Defence Government of Pakistan is necessary party. to the suit and the plaintiffs have failed to implead him as defendant in the suit, therefore, suit of the plaintiffs/ petitioners is not maintainable in the present form. But I do not agree with this contention of the learned Additional Advocate General as the plaintiffs/ petitioners have already impleaded Ministry of Defence through Composite Ordinance Depot Juglote as defendant No,4. However, if there is any defect in description, the court may at any time and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit amend any defect or error in any proceedings in a suit under section 153, C.P.C. In this connection reliance can be placed on the case law reported in PLD 1991 SC P.374.
11. The crux of the above discussion is that this civil revision petition is accepted. Consequently the impugned order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the learned trial is set aside and consequently the petition filed under Order VI, 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. by the petitioners is allowed. File after due completion be consigned to record.