1. ' ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, C J.--This petition was admitted by us on 12-3-1984. On the same day we had stayed the proceedings in the suit in relation to which this petition had been filed. Such stay was subject to notice. On 2-5-1984 the counsel who are appearing today before us had appeared.
2. We were of the view that the point involved was very short one and we had put all the advocates notice that the matter may also be finally heard on the next date when the hearing of the application was fixed. Today Miscellaneous Application No,450/84 was fixed for hearing, but by consent of all counsel w have heard the matter finally.
3. ' The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No,4 and probably a few other persons also were seeking transfer o premises from respondent No,2. The petitioner at some stage came t believe that respondent No,2 was not inclined to transfer the premise in his favour but was inclined to transfer the same to respondent No, and in such circumstances he filed Suit No,3635/80 before the VT Senior Civil Judge at Karachi seeking a permanent injunction to restrain respondents Nos.2 and 4 from invading his rights to such property During the pendency of the suit the petitioner came to know the respondent No,2 had by a registered deed transferred the property i question to respondent No,4. In these circumstances the petitioner may an application before the Court under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. seeking an amendment by adding a paragraph to challenge such act of respondent Nos.2 and 4 whereby the property in question had been transfer by respondent No,2 to respondent No,4 by registered deed. Su application was granted by the Senior Civil Judge in spite of opposition The main thrust of the opposition was that by allowing such amend me the cause of action underlying the suit had been varied and thereof such amendment would not fall within the scope of Order VI, rule 1 C.P.C. Respondent No,4 was aggrieved by said order so that he fil the revision application which was registered as Civil Revision Application' No,169/82. This revision application came to be heard by the Fir Additional District Judge, Karachi who by an order, dated 17-12-19 allowed the revision application and set aside the order of Senior Civil Judge whereby an amendment had been permitted.
4. ' It is in these circumstances that the petitioner feeling aggrieve has filed the present constitutional petition.
5. ' Mr. Zaheeruddin Khan appearing for respondent No,2 has fill a counter-affidavit of one Abdul Tahim Tejani who is the Secretary the Karachi Port Trust. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that t petition was misconceived and has no merit. In paragraph 3 of t counter-affidavit it is stated that respondent No,2 has been and still ready and willing recognize the petitioner as a co-lessee of t plot in question. The long and short is that the relief claimed in t petition is not opposed by Mr. Zaheeruddin Khan.
6. ' Mr. Amir Ahmed Khan has filed a counter-affidavit of Mir Has which is fairly long. Most of the contents of this affidavit relate to merits of the case itself and entitlement of parties to the premises question and with such aspect of the case we are not concerned w the present petition.
7. We are concerned with facts only to the extent which the same are relevant for determination about the correctness the order of the Additional District Judge on the revision applicant which was filed to challenge the allowing of making an amendment. regard to the amendment itself Mr. Amir Ahmed Khan attempted argue by reference to conduct of the petitioner and also the merits .entitlement of the two parties. To that extent we would not be concern because any expression of opinion on the point of rival entitlement fight prejudice one or the other party in the suit that is still pending.
8. ' The point which is germane to the decision of this petition is about the correctness and propriety of the order whereby the amendment as allowed to be made. It is common case between the parties that here was a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No,4 in regard to the obtaining of lease of the premises from respondent No,2. o get the said dispute resolved a suit was filed by the Petitioner afore the Civil Judge. During the pendency of the suit respondent o.2 actually transferred the property by way of lease to respondent o.4. In these circumstances it would appear that during the pendency f the suit the petitioner derived knowledge that the property had eon transferred by respondent No,2 to respondent No,4 by a lease need. The petitioner was interested in having this lease deed adjudged, legal or having no effect. Such matter was very intimately connected the main issue in the original plaint. It cannot be said that by lowing such an amendment the nature of the suit has been altered the cause of action was so different that it could not be agitated in said suit. In these circumstances we are clearly of the view that order of the learned Senior Civil Judge allowing the amendment plaint was justified. We are therefore of the view that this order as not liable to be recalled or set aside by the provisional Court. We, therefore, declare that the order of the First Additional District Judge, rachis in Civil Revision Application No,169/82 is of no legal effect, d is set aside. The result will be that amendment that had been syed for by the petitioner and granted by the Vth Senior Civil judge, Karachi in Suit No,3835/80 is held valid. The petition is allowed such extent.
9. ' The costs of the petition shall be borne by respondent No,4 award no costs against the respondent No,2 because they have not nested the petition. 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.