' This petition arises out of sale of agricultural land measuring 521 kanals and 3 marlas for a consideration of Rs.5,90,000/- on 19-3-1974. Two rival suits for pre-emption were filed on 17-3-1975.
The first suit is "Altaf Hussain v. Khushi Muhammad" out of which Civil Revision No.956/79 arises and the second suit is "Abdul Hamid v. Khushi Muhammad" out of which Civil Revision No.1145/79 arises.
Both the suits were ordered to be consolidated and on 7-3-1979 an application was moved in the first suit by Altaf Hussain plaintiff under Order VI, rule 17 seeking permission to amend the plaint by addition of Khasras Nos. 22 and 23 of Sqr. No.42. Similarly in the second suit an application was moved by the plaintiff on 7-4-1979 under Order VI, rule 17 in which four amendments were sought in relation to the numbering of the Khasra numbers, square number and addition and omission of certain killa numbers.
2. Both these applications were disposed of by identical orders of trial Court dated 8-7-1979 whereby the plaintiffs were refused permission to amend their plaints. On admission of the afore- referred two civil revisions proceedings before the trial Court were stayed.
3. This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos.956/79 and 1145/79.
4. In the first suit it was stated by the petitioner/plaintiff that Khasra No.23 had been omitted on account of mistake in the copy supplied by the office of Registrar of documents. It was admitted that omission of Khasra No. 22 was on account of inadvertence but that the area and the square numbers were correctly given. In the second suit it was stated that the area, Khata number, Khatuni number and Killa number as well as square number given in the plaint were according to copy of Sale Deed supplied by Registrar of Documents but later on it was found out that the copy supplied contained errors. This was noticed when the certified copy of the same sale deed was produced by the plaintiff in the first suit and the certified copies were found to be different from each other.
However, it was stated that the area. Khata number, Khatuni number are correctly given in both the suits and that the entire area sold was sought to be pre-empted.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in these circumstances where the petitioner plaintiff sought to pre-empt the entire sale, had given the correct area, Khata number, Khatuni number and in certain aspects the description of the land had defects on account of error in the copy supplied by the official agency, the plaintiff petitioner could not be penalized and that the policy of the law was to allow amendments in such situation. Learned counsel in Civil Revision No.956/79 further argued that it was clear from the plaint that the area was correctly given and the omission of Khasra No.22 was on account of sheer inadvertence. Learned counsel relied on the provisions of section 153 C.P.C. And also on its Order VI, rule 17. They also relied on the judgments given in the case of Abdul Sattar v. Muhammad Bakhsh PLD 1979 Note No.51 at P.35. Bahadur Shah v. Sharaf (PLD 1973 Lah. 513), Muhammad Arshad v. Murad (PLD 1965 Pesh. 225) and Mst. Fatima v.
Sardara (PLD 1956 Lah. 474).
6. In Abdul Sattar's case afore-referred, after a survey of the case law it was observed by the learned Judges that misdescription in the pleading on account of mistakes of copying agency ought not to be allowed to defeat the rights of the suitors and that correction ought to be allowed where there is no mistake about the identity of the property but a misdescription has except in, not on account of the party. Bahadur Shah's case arose out of a pre-emption suit in which one Khasra number was omitted but the Khata number and area was correctly given. It was observed that as the entire area sold, the Khasra number and Khata had been shown correctly, the suit could not on account of the omission be deemed to suffer from defect of partial preemption and accordingly it was directed that amendment prayed be allowed. In Arshad Khan's case which also arose out of a pre-emption suit, one Khasra number had been omitted and one misdescribed on account of a mistake in the copy of the sale-deed supplied by the Registration Department. However, the khata numbers had been correctly described and copy of Jamabandi had also been filed. The Court in these circumstances came to the conclusion that the error was on account of mistake committed by the copying agency and allowed the amendment sought. In Mst. Fatima's case the defect pointed out was the incorrect description of Khasra numbers but the Court found that the Khata number had been correctly given. Jamabandi and the sale deed had also been filed. Amendment was accordingly allowed. In the present case it is pointed out by the petitioner that the Jamabandi supplied by the Revenue Authorities is also incorrect and does not tally with the Sale Deed and in place of 76 field numbers actually sold, the Jamabandi only mentions 56 field numbers.
7. In accordance with the provisions of Order VI, Rule 17 the Court should allow all amendments necessary for the purpose of determining the real matter in controversy and in the present case it is apparent that the errors are on account of mistakes in the copies of the sale-deeds supplied to the two plaintiffs and the Jamabandi also is said to be erroneous. In fact the two copies of the Sale Deed supplied to the plaintiff do not tally with each other. It will therefore be placing a premium on technicality if the amendments sought by the plaintiffs were to be refused, in the circumstances narrated above. Procedure ought not to be used for the purpose of defeating justice and technicalities of procedure have to be avoided. (See M. Ismail v. Sarwar 1980 SCMR 254), Thal Engineering Industries v. Bank of Bahawalpur 1979 SCMR 32, Manager Jammu and Kashmir State Property v. Khuda Yar (PLD 1975 SC 678), Toor Gul v. Mst. Mumtaz Begum (PLD 1972 SC 9), Mehdi Khan v., Faqir Muhammad (PLD 1980 Lah, 110).
8. In view of the above, the impugned orders suffer from material irregularity and are also based on misreading of the record and failure to understand the real issues raised. They are accordingly set aside and the petitioner/plaintiffs allowed the amendment sought. At this stage I would like to observe that even today the learned counsel are not in a position to state the exact description of Khasra numbers sold as they have submitted that the original Sale Deed has not yet been produced in the Court by the plaintiffs. In the event of any further misdescription coming to light between the original Sale Deed and the copies supplied by the officer of the Registrar of Documents, the plaintiffs can apply to the trial Court for further amendment in accordance with the law. Revision petition accepted.
' In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.