Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1986 MLD 583

TAJ MUHAMMAD vs DISTRICT JUDGE and others

Citation1986 MLD 583
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No,1022 of 1982
Date1983-01-16
Judge(s)Muhammad Munir Khan
ResultPetition dismissed

' This is petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, whereby Taj Muhammad petitioner wants this Court to declare the order, dated 27-7-1982 of the learned District Judge, Multan, to be without lawful authority.

2. The facts leading up to this writ petition in brief are that Malik Qadir Bakhsh and Mst. Asghari Begum respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed a suit for permanent mandatory injunction against Taj Muhammad petitioner herein. The petitioner contested the suit and filed his written statement on 16-9=1980. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under. Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. For permission to amend the written statement which was allowed by the trial Court on 18-10-1981.

Feeling aggrieved by that order, Malik Qadir Bakhsh and Mst. Asghari Begum respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein filed revision before the learned District Judge, Multan who vide his order, dated 27-2- 1982 while accepting the revision dismissed the application for amendment of the written statement. Hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the order, dated 18-10-1981 allowing amendment in the written statement is not a "case decided" within the meanings of section 115, C.P.C. The learned Additional District Judge had no authority to interfere with and set aside the same.

' As against this, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 has defended the impugned order.

4. After hearing the learned counsel I find that it is now well-settled that an order allowing amendment in pleadings is a "case decided" within the meanings of section 115, C.P.C., and the same can be challenged in revision under section 115, C.P.C. I further find that the learned District Judge has fully applied his mind in the matter and has given sound reasons in support of his order and as such it cannot be said that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction, illegally or with material irregularity.

' For what has been stated above, there being no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch