Pakistan Case Law← Search
1987 MLD 2548

ALLAH WASAYA and others vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB throughCollector,

Citation1987 MLD 2548
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No,20/R of 1985
Date1986-08-27
Judge(s)Muhammad Zafarullah
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

The petitioners brought a suit in 1980 seeking a declaration that the petitioners were lawfully entitled to the property left by Rahim Bakhsh, their predecessor-in-interest. After six years they moved an application for amendment of plaint in attempt to incorporate a challenge to the orders passed by the District Collector Multan of 21-12-1970 and by Deputy Settlement Commissioner

(Land) Mailsi of 28-8-1971. The petitioners also sought to introduce a contention that their predecessor-in-interest Rahim Bakhsh was of unsound mind. The trial Court rejected the application on the ground that no amendmert could be allowed after such a delay and that it cannot be believed that the petitioners were not aware of the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. It was also observed that the mental condition of Rahim Bakhsh could not be unknown to the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the orders of the trial Court dated 18-6-1986 in revision before the learned District Judge, Vehari but the revision petition was dismissed on 13-7-1986. This brings the petitioners to the High Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction.

2. It is true that the amendment could be allowed at any stage but nobody can claim amendment as a matter of right. There have to be sufficient reasons to permit the amendment. In the present case the Court of competent jurisdiction has found that the claim of the petitioners that they were not aware of the orders now sought to be challenged by amendment, was not justified. Similarly it is obvious that the mental condition of Rahim Bakhsh should have been well-known to the petitioners at the time of the filing of the suit. The order of the trial Court not to permit amendment of the plaint is, therefore, justified. Similarly, no objection can be taken to the order passed by the learned District Judge in revision. The writ petition cannot be a substitute of a second revision petition which for all intents and purpose it seeks to be. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search