1. ' MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.--This appeal is directed against the order of Single Judge of this Court passed on 17-10-1984 in suit No, 392/82 rejecting the application of the appellant made for amending their written statement in order to establish that the suit had not been filed under the authority of respondent No,
1. The learned Single Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the application was belated and could not be allowed to be made after the evidence of the plaintiff's side had almost concluded. Mr. Salahuddin has submitted that the views of the Supreme Court in PLD 1971 SC 82 have not been followed by the Single Judge. We however find that the learned Single Judge has considered that case and he was, therefore, cognizant of the views of the Supreme Court that a suit on behalf of a Company can be filed only under the authority conferred upon the concerned person by a valid resolution of the Board of Directors, The learned Judge however considered that the application for amendment was not properly based in view of the admission made in para. 3 of the affidavit in support of the application where the appellant had stated that the plea about the validity of the suit was not raised earlier in the written statement under a bona fide belief that this being a question of law under independent pleadings. On the basis of this para. in the affidavit the learned Judge took the view that this thing about the invalidity of the suit on account of lack of resolution was in the knowledge of the defendants/appellants and, therefore, their statements that they have learnt of it for the first time after the statement of the plaintiff's witnesses had been recorded was incorrect. This was a reasonable attitude taken by the learned Judge and no exception could really be taken to the same. Moreover we find that another Division Bench of this Court of which one of us was a member had observed on 21-2-1984 that the suit was to be disposed within two months in view of heavy stakes involved. The amendment application having been made in October, 1984 was evidently filed too long after 21-2-1984 when the observation was made by another D.B. The purpose of the same appears to be merely prolonging the litigation between the parties.
2. ' Mr. Salahuddin had contended that Supreme Court had allowed an amendment even at the stage of Supreme Court appeal in PLD 1973 SC 507 and PLD 1963 SC 191. However every case depends upon its own facts. In 1973 SC the prayer by the plaintiff for recovery of compensation in lieu of original property was allowed by the Supreme Court on the ground that it cannot be described as setting up of a new case and, therefore, the Supreme Court was pleased to allow that amendment. In 1963 SC 191 the Supreme Court allowed the amendment because in the light of the fact that the appellant had been consistently endeavoring to assert their right in the property before the Supreme Court and Supreme Court thought that it would be a great hardship to defeat that right merely on technical ground.
3. ' The present case is however not of the nature of any hardship. The appellant had been conscious of their right in respect of invalidity of the suit but they did not raise it earlier on the basis that they could raise it at any time and therefore, the learned Single Judge was quite right in rejecting the application in such a belated form when almost 4 of the plaintiff's witnesses had finished their depositions and only one witness was to be examined and now the further position is that even the 5th witness has been examined and the plaintiff have closed their evidence.
4. We do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the Single Judge' as we are of the view that this case should be decided expeditiously and the parties should not be allowed to move for amendment merely because one witness had made a statement. This petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.