Dr. Khurshid Iqbal, J.
1. Alam Zeb and Khan Sardar (the petitioners), have filed the instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, with the following prayer: "On acceptance of this writ petition, the impugned order dated 25.05.2021 of respondent No.3 and dated 21.10.2021 of respondent No.4 may declared as null and void, consequently the petition of respondents No.1 and 2 regarding amendments may kindly be dismissed."
2. Facts shortly are that the plaintiffs respondents No.1 and 2 (Alamzeb and Umara Khan) have brought a civil suit against the defendants-petitioners, for declaration of the suit property fully described in the head-note of the plaint, its possession as a consequential relief, cancellation of deeds, and permanent injunction. The petitioners submitted their joint written statement and denied the ownership of respondents-plaintiff with respect to the suit property.
On 03.12.2020, the respondents submitted an application for amendment in their plaint which was contested by the petitioner through their written reply. The trial Court, after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, while accepting the application of the respondents (vide order dated 25.05.2021) allowed the proposed amendments in the plaint. Being aggrieved, the petitioners assailed the foresaid order by filling a revision petition before the revisional Court, but was turned down vide impugned order/judgment dated 21.10.2021.
4. Arguments of counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Perusal of record reflects that the main contention of the petitioners is that the respondents sought amendment in their plaint with the intention to defeat the suit their mother has instituted against them for her Shari share in the legacy of her father. Both the learned Courts below have allowed the amendment in the plaint as the respondents sought for the reason that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit and would also be not detrimental to the petitioners. Indeed, the respondents have filed a separate suit against the petitioners (their maternal first cousins) earlier than the suit the mother of the petitioners has filed against them. In their suit, the respondents initially claimed the property as their ancestral ownership and prayed for perpetually restraining them from interference therein. The amendment they proposed was that they want to add that the suit property was purchased by their father (the maternal uncles of the petitioners) and that he had given it to certain tenants for cultivation. Being plaintiffs in the suit, the respondents could not be prevented from making the proposed amendment in their plaint, particularly when the same is not likely to change the form of the suit. As far the plea of the petitioners referred to above is concerned, suffice it to say that mother of the petitioners has filed a separate suit for her Shari share. Both the suits are to be decided on their respective merits.
6. The law relating to amendment in pleadings is laid down in Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C, which is reproduced for ready reference as under: "17. Amendement of pleadings. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties."
7. The expression "at any stage of the proceedings" has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others v. Sarsa Khan and others (PLD 1985 SC 345), where it is held: "[...] The use of the expression 'at any stage of the proceeding' in rule 17 is not without significance. The word 'proceedings' has been interpreted by this Court in a liberal manner so as to give a proper scope to the rule in accord with its purpose, as including the appellate stage and that too up to the Supreme Court.
The foregoing interpretation is also in accord with the mandatory language used in rule 17 to the effect that 'all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy. Therefore, once the Court decides that the amendment is necessary for the said purpose of determining the real question, the Court is required by law to not only to allow an application made by a party in that behalf but is also bound to direct the amendment for the said purpose. Thus, the rule can be divided into two parts. In the cases falling under the first part, the Court has the discretion to allow or not to allow the amendment, but under the second part once the Court comes to a finding that the amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question, it becomes the duty of the Court to permit the amendment.
What has been stated above is, however, subject to a very important condition that the nature of the suit in so far as its cause of action is concerned is not changed by the amendment whether it falls under the first part of rule 17 or in the second part, because when the cause of action is changed the suit itself would become different from the on initially filed. Here this condition would not have been contravened if the amendment had been allowed by the High Court. The bundle of facts narrated in the plaint which constitute the cause of action, as the application for amendment shows, would not have suffered any material change if the request would have been allowed. Apart from the consequential technical changes mutatis mutandis in the context of the grounds stated in the application for amendment, only two major amendments were sought to be made in the plaint. They would have been firstly, the change in the heading signifying the suit being for specific performance etc. instead of declaration etc. and secondly, there was to be a similar change in the prayer paragraph. These amendments would not have caused any embarrassment to the respondents defendants either in seeking and making similar amendments in their written statement. The inconvenience caused to the respondents as the provision itself visualises is not only natural but would ordinarily be occasioned in almost every case. That is why the law visualises the award of adequate compensation: in that, the amendment has to be allowed 'in such manner and on such terms as may be just'.
In the light of the foregoing discussion if the cause of action does not change the main substance of the suit and nature of the suit would not change and if that does not change the question of limitation would then remain only of form and not of substance. That is why this Court has so far followed the liberal rule in interpreting Order VI, rule 27 so as, to permit amendment if otherwise necessary notwithstanding the possibility that on account of some formal change, the question of limitation might have acquired pronounced importance, had it not been a case of amendment under Order VI, rule 17. Other principles governing the question of amendment in pleadings have adequately been determined and examined in the precedent law and no more discussion is necessary in so far as the question of law and principle is concerned."
8. Reliance is also placed on the case of Lahore Development Authority and others v. Sultan Ahmad and other (2007 SCMR 1682), in which it was held: "6. Allowing or refusing to allow amendment of pleadings is an act, which hits at the very root of the attack or defence of a party, as the case may be. The parties cannot lead evidence beyond their pleadings and hence it affects the production of evidence as well. Ultimately, the case of a party, refused amendment in genuine cases, is most likely to be seriously jeopardized. Thus, the question of amendment in hand was not of such an interlocutory nature, which could subsequently, be rectified at the time of final decision of case."
9. Recent cases may be referred here are Zahid Jamil v. Mst. Saeeda Bano and another [2011 MLD 1339 (Peshawar)] and Muhammad Essa Khan throuzh L.Rs v. Muhammad Afzal Khan through L.Rs and 10 others [2021 YLR 1766 (Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court)].
10. The following key points could be deduced from the above judgments:
(i) the words "at any stage of the proceedings" may be given liberally interpreted, to include higher fora, including the Supreme Court.
(ii) A proposed amendment must be shown as essential for determination of the real questions in the case.
(iii) Once the court finds that amendment is necessary for the purpose of the real question in the controversy, it becomes obligatory on it to allow amendment.
(iv) A proposed necessary amendment shall not change the nature of the suit so as to introduce a new cause of action.
(v) It is but natural that an amendment tends to cease inconvenience to, the opposite party.
Hence, it may be allowed on just and appropriate costs to the opposite party.
(vi) The nature of the suit not being changed by an amendment, the question of limitation would emerge as of form rather than of substance.
(vii) Amendment, allowed or refused, goes to the roots of a party's case, as such, highly likely to imperil the party's genuine case.
11. In light of the above discussion, no jurisdictional defect or material irregularity in the impugned orders/judgments of the learned trial as well as the appellate Court could be found. Therefore, the instant writ petition stands dismissed being meritless. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.