ALI BAIG, J. Through the instant civil revision petition filed under section 115 read with sectio n 151, C.P.C., the petitioner/plaintif f has challenged the impugned judgment/order dated 27.11.2018, passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit, whereby the learned 1st appellate court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/ plaintif f under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P .C. for amendment in the plaint.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant civil revision petition are that the present petitioner/plaintif f instituted a suit for declaration and possession of suit land fully described in the head note of plaint against the present respondent/defendant in the learned trial court.
3. Along with the plaint, the petitioner/plaintif f had also filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction in the trial court. The learned trial court after hearing arguments on the aforesaid application on behalf of both the parties has dismissed the application of the present petitioner/plaintif f filed Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 C.P .C. for grant of temporary injunction vide judgment/order dated 28-4-2018.
4. The aforesaid judgment/order passed by the learned trial court was challenged in the court of the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit through civil 1st appeal. During pendency of civil 1st appeal the present petitioner/plaintif f filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. in the 1st appellate court for some amendment in the plaint. The learned 1st appellate court after obtaining replication to the aforesaid application from respondent/defendant and hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has dismissed the application of the present petitioner/plaintif f filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. for amendment in the plaint vide the impugned judgment/order dated 27-1 1-2018.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned 1st appellate court, the present petitioner/plaintif f has filed the instant civil revision petition in this court.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/ plaintif f 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 passed by the learned 1st appellate court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintif f further argued that the plaintif f/ petitioner intend to amend in the plaint as under:-
(a) That the petitioner/plaintif f has gifted 5 kanals land to his real son late Mukhtar Hussain vide mutation No. 480 dated 06.01.2004 and the plaintif f has never gifted 7.3 kanals land to his real son.
(b) That the appellant/plaintif f is a real grandfather of orphan children of late Mukhtar Hussain while the said orphan children have nominated the plaintif f as a next friend.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that if the aforesaid proposed amendment is allowed, neither nature of suit would be changed nor a new cause of action would be introduced, hence by accepting this revision petition, the petitioner may be allowed to insert/add the aforesaid proposed amendment in the plaint.
8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent/ defendant controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that if proposed amendment is allowed, the nature and complexion of suit would be changed which is not permissible under law. The learned counsel for the respondent further argued that the plaintif f/petitioner has not mentioned in the application filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. that in which part of plaint the petitioner wants to add/insert the proposed amendment, hence the petition of the plaintif f filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. is defective, vague and is not maintainable and the learned 1st appellate court has rightly dismissed the aforesaid application of the petitione r. The learned counsel for the respondent/defendant further argued that the main suit of the petitioner/plaintif f has already been dismissed by the learned trial court and no suit of the plaintif f/petitioner is pending adjudication before the learned trial court, hence this revision petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their valuable assistance.
10. From perusal of contents of the application filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. by the petitioner/plaintif f it shows that the plaintif f/petitioner has sought the following amendment in the plaint:--
(a) That the appellant/plaintif f has gifted 5 kanals land to his real son late Mukhtar Hussain vide mutation No. 480 dated 06.01.2009(1.5 kanal from khasra No. 1308 and 3.5 kanals from khasra No. 1233). The plaintif f has never gifted 7.3 kanals land to his real son.
(b) That the appellant/plaintif f is a real grandfather of orphan children of late Mukhtar Hussain while the said orphan children have nominated the plaintif f as a next friend.
11. Bare reading of afore mentioned proposed amendment and contents of application filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. it transpires that the petitioner/plaintif f has failed to mention that in which paragraph/Para of plaint the proposed amendment is to be added/inserted and it has also not been mentioned in the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. that which word/para of the plaint is to be deleted after adding/inserting proposed amendment in the plaint which is prerequisite for amendment in the pleadings.
12. Thus the application filed by the petitioner/plaintif f under Order VI, rule 17 is vague, defective and is not sustainable in the eye of law. Moreover , in original plaint the plaintif f/petitioner has pleaded/ averred that he had gifted 7.3 kanals land to his real son late Mukhtar Hussain and now through amendment the plaintif f wants to add/amend in the plaint that the petitioner/plaintif f has gifted 5 kanals land to his late B son namely Mukhtar Hussain and the plaintif f has never gifted 7.3 kanals land to his real son. In this connection it is settled law that admission or denial in the plaint or written statement will not be allowed to be amended. Thus the impugned order passed by the learned 1st appellate court is legal, in accordance with law and unexceptional which does not require any interference by this court.
13. For what has been discussed above, I find no force in this civil revision petition, therefore this civil revision petition being without any merits is hereby dismissed. Consequently the impugned judgment/order dated 27-11- 2018, passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit is upheld. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File.