' This writ petition assails an order dated 29-3-1983 of the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby he accepted a Revision petition and dismissed the petitioner's application for amendment of his suit for pre-emption.
2. The petitioner sought to pre-empt the suit land on the ground that he was 'Sharik-i-Khata', 'Malik Rakba' and 'Hanna Sharik'. Some five months after concluding his evidence on issues, he noted the mistake in the plaint and sought its amendment to add a qualification of being 'Malik Deh'. His plea was that the words "Malik Rakba" were in fact misdescribed for "Malik Deh". The trial Court allowed the amendment but in the Revision the learned Additional District Judge held otherwise. He took the view that 'Malik Rakba' being no qualification for pre-emption, could not be allowed to be changed into 'Malik Deh as it will amount to setting up a new case after seeing that the petitioner will not succeed on the qualifications already taken up. Accordingly, he dismissed the application.
3. In support of the present writ, considerable arguments have been raised. It was urged that the discretion exercised by the trial Court could not have been interfered with in Revision; that allowing amendment was not a 'case decided' so as to have called for the invocation of section 115, C.P.C.; that acceptance of costs had disentitled the respondent from agitating against the amendment; that the addition of a qualification for pre-emption was not setting up a new case, and that the writ in such an event was most appropriate remedy. Copious references were made in support of each of these points.
4. In reply, however, at the outset an objection was taken that the order being of interlocutory nature, no writ would lie. Muhammad Hussain v. District Judge, Sheikhupura etc. 1981 Law Notes (Lah.) 456 was relied upon. It can hardly be denied that the order of allowing or refusing amendment of pleadings is essentially of interlocutory nature. The suit is still said to be pending and evidently it could be agitated A in any possible appeal. This ordinary remedy has to be exhausted. Reliance was placed on Munir Ahmad v. Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh 1983 CLC 113, wherein an order passed in Revision petition by the learned District Judge was set aside by the High Court in a constitutional writ as it was found to be against law. A perusal of this authority shows that no objection as to the maintainability of writ was raised on the ground that the order of the trial Court or for that matter of the Revisional Court was interlocutory as could not be called in question through the writ petition. Accordingly, this authority will not help the petitioner as against the clear rule laid down in Muhammad Hussain's case. The chance to assail the order in any appeal still remains to be availed and hence the writ was incompetent. It is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.