' Learned Civil Judge, Gujrat, vide order dated 7-12-1983 permitted the plaintiff Anjuman to add the relief of recovery of possession through amendment in a suit instituted by the plaintiff-Anjuman for declaration against Hafiz Zia-ud-Din. Order allowing amendment was assailed in revisional jurisdiction before the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat in Civil Revision No. 10 of 1983, Revision was dismissed on 4-7-1984 as it, in view of the learned Additional District Judge, did not only with requirements of Order XLIII, rule 4, C.P.C., as amended. After making compliance with the above stated legal requirements another revision was filed which came to be heard and disposed of by Khan Muhammad Ashfaq learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat. This time also the petition for revision was dismissed solely on the ground that "dismissal of revision petition on preliminary objection did not" make any difference and the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge finally decides the revision petition in the matter. I am satisfied that in the presence of judgment dated 4-7-1984 passed by my learned brother ADJ-I, the present revision petition is not competent.
The revision petition is accordingly dismisse. In this background, order of Additional District Judge Gujrat dated 19-1-1985 has been assailed in constitutional jurisdiction by the defendant Hafiz Zia- ud-Din.
2. Ch. Muhammad Abdul Wahid, learned counsel has been heard in support of the constitutional petition. Learned counsel contended that Civil Revision No. 10 of 1983 was dismissed on technical grounds and that order dated 4-7-1984 did not provide an insuperable obstacle in the entertainment of second revision petition. Order, dated 19-1-1985 on this score alone was unsustainable. He also contended that the proposed amendment lacked bona fides. The suit was instituted years back. Several attempts to obtain an interim relief proved unsuccessful. In an attempt to further delay the proceedings, petition for amendment had been made. In the circumstances, the trial Court was not legally justified to permit the plaintiff to add the relief of recovery of possession. Learned Additional District Judge in his revisional jurisdiction had proceeded entirely on untenable grounds in refusing relief to the wronged defendant.
3. The plaintiff-Anjuman had instituted a suit for declaration against defendant Hafiz Zia-ud-Din. In the application seeking amendment in the plaint, a prayer has been made to add/include relief for recovery of possession. This prayer was allowed by the trial Court. Revision has been dismissed; Firstly when the defendant petitioner did not comply with the requirements of Order XLIII, rule 4, C .P.C . secondly on the ground that the dismissal order, dated 4-7-1984 operated as bar to the entertainment of second revision by learned Additional District Judge. Legal question whether Order XLIII, rule 4 applies to a revisional jurisdiction has been examined by this Court in Mst. Majidan Khanum v. District Judge Vehari, 1984 CLC 3270, and the answer was found in the negative. Note "E" of the above noted Report reads:- "Order XLII1, rules 3 and 4 and section 115--Provisions of Order XLIII, rules 3 and 4, held, were not applicable to revision under section 115, C.P.C.--Applications as mentioned in Order XLIII, rule 4, C.P.C. were confined to applications filed before appellate Court and not to revisional Court-- Application for revision invoking revisional jurisdiction of Court not covered by Order XLIII, rule 4-- Compliance of Order XLIII, rules, 3 and 4, C.P.C. could not constitute condition precedent on fulfilment of which alone a revision could be entertained--Order of Court dismissing revision petition on view that no notice of revision petition was given to respondent under Order XLIII, rules 3 and 4, C.P.C. wholly unsustainable."
' This judgment fully answers the question whether rule 4 of Order XLII applies to a petition for revision. When the order of learned Additional District Judge, dated 4-7-1984 is examined in the light of law laid down by this Court in 1984 CLC 3270 it becomes crystal clear that the learned Additional District Judge acted without jurisdiction in dismissing the revision petition on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Order XLIII, rule 4, C.P.C. Second time, the petitioner Hafiz Zia-ud-Din after removing the defect pointed out in the order, dated 4-7-1984 again approached the Court for exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This time learned Additional District Judge refused the relief solely on the ground that the earlier petition for revision stood dismissed. In my view, order, dated 4-7-1984 did not operate as a bar to the entertainment of a fresh revision petition. Order, dated 19-1-1984 therefore, being untenable in law cannot be sustained. This observation, however, does not help the petitioner. Despite the fact that the order of learned Additional District Judge, dated 19-1-1985, has been found to be defective on legal plane, still I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below. The trial Court in proper exercise of its discretion has allowed amendment and permitted the plaintiff to add the relief of recovery of possession in the plaint. Mere delay was no ground to refuse amendment. In the words of Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C., the Court may at any stage of amendments impleadings when the same are necessary for the purposes of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. It is not the case of the petitioner that the proposed amendment was not necessary for proper and complete decision of the controversy raised in the suit. Their Lordship of the Supreme Court in Karamat Ali and another v. Muhammad Younas Haji and another PLD 1963 SC 19, had allowed amendment so as to enable the plaintiff to add the relief of possession in a suit for declaration filed under section 42, Court observed:- "That this Court has the power to grant leave to amend even at the stage in which the matter is in the present case is not decided by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, but it is contended that this power should not be exercised where its effect would be to take away a legal right which has accrued by lapse of time. It is pointed out that on the admission of the appellant Karamat All himself the respondents took possession of all but the homestead portion after the decision of the District Judge in the revision filed against the order of the appellate Officer.
This was sometime in 1944-45 and as such the claim of the appellants to possession has clearly become barred by limitation.
' The judicial Committee of the Privy Council consistently maintained that it had undoubtedly full power to allow such amendments even where a legal right had accrued by lapse of time if the special circumstances of the case outweighed such considerations, vide Muhammad Zahoor Ali Khan v. Mst. Thakooranee Rutta Koer 11 M I A 468 and Charan Das and others v. Amir Khan and others AIR 1921 P C 50. That this Court possesses similar power to do complete justice cannot be disputed. In exercising this power, no doubt, this Couet would be reluctant to allow an amendment which would have the effect of totally altering the nature of the suit of taking away a valuable right accrued by lapse of time, but where in the circumstances of a particular case it would be plainly inequitable to refuse such a relief, this Court will not hesitate to do what the Judicial Committee did in the case of Muhammad Zahoor Ali Khan v. Mst. Thakooranee Rutta Koer."
4. There are large number of judicial precedents to support the statement of law that power to allow amendment in pleadings should be liberally exercised so as to shorten the litigation and advance the cause of justice unless its effect was to change the entire complexion of the suit or substitute one cause of action for another, which is not the case here.
5. In the above circumstances, order dated 7-12-1983 permitting amendment in the plaint which is otherwise just and proper need not be interfered with. Writ petition has no force and is dismissed in limine.
Writ dismissed.