' This revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against the order dated 29-11-1981 of the learned Civil Judge whereby he allowed addition of words "Ziman No. 2" after "Ziman No. 1" in the prayer clause contained in the plaint. The other amendment sought was, however, . Refused. The suit itself was filed on 14-11-1979 for possession through pre-emption of land sold vide sale-deed, dated 23-11-1978. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement on 18-12-1981 wherein an objection, that the suit is barred by the principle of partial pre-emption, was also taken, without giving any reason or disclosing any basis thereof. The learned trial Court framed necessary issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties and the plaintiff-respondent produced some evidence on 18-3-1981. The suit was then 'adjourned firstly to 6-5-1981 and then to 8-6-1981 for production of the remaining evidence. On 8-6-1981, respondent-plaintiff submitted an application seeking amendment so as to add the words "Ziman No. 2" in the prayer clause, as noted above. He also sought permission to amend the valuation caluse of the plaint. The amendment, so as to add the words 'Ziman No.2' in the relief/prayer clause, was allowed. Hence this revision petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court while allowing amendment acted with material irregularity by not following the rule laid down in Hashmat Ali v.
Sheikh Hafizullah etc. PLD 1956 (W.P.) B J 33 and that the respondent having omitted to pre-empt rights in the "Shamlat" could not legally be granted permission to claim the same on the basis of the application submitted after long time of the filing of the suit so as to deprive the petitioner of the right which had accrued to him in the meantime. Reliance has been placed on Bashir Ahmad Khan v. Qaiser Ali Khan and 2 others PLD 1973 SC 507 and Khalil Ahmad Khan v. Sultan Ahmad Shami and another PLD 1978 Lah.
779.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has argued that the. District Judge should have been approached first, though this Court and the District Judge have concurrent jurisdiction.
He further argued that the policy of law is to allow amendments liberally and the petitioners having pre-empted the entire transaction, the amendment was rightly allowed so as to cure the technical defect, if any, and that the order allowing amendment does not amount to "case decided" and hence revision is not competent under section 115, C.P.C. Reliance is placed on Rao Qadeer Khan v.
The State PLD 1981 SC 93 with regard to the merits of the case and on Ch. Ahmad Din and 2 others v. The Australasia Bank Ltd., Bhalwal 1971 SCMR 507 in support of the objection regarding non- maintainability of revision.
4. In order to examine the correctness or otherwise of the order allowing amendment, I have gone through the plaint, the written statement, amendment application and its reply. In para. 2 of the plaint it was stated that the land measuring 149 Kanals 2 Marlas described in para. 1 alongwith all sorts of rights attaching thereto was sold vide registered sale-deed dated 23-11-1978 for Rs.60,000 but in order to defeat the pre-emption right of the plaintiff instead of Rs.60,000 the actual sale price, a ficticious sale price of Rs.1,00,000 was entered in the sale-deed. Then in para. 3 of the plaint, the right of pre-emption was claimed on the ground that the plaintiff was owner in the estate but this qualification was not possessed by the respondents-vendees; that the plaintiff was co-owner in the Khata whereas the defendants were not the owners in the Khata; that the plaintiff seeks to pre-empt the entire transaction and that no notice, according to Pre-emption Act, was given to the plaintiff before the sale. Thereafter, the relief, prayed for in the prayer clause, was that decree of possession through pre-emption in respect of land measuring 149 Kanals 2 Marlas as described in para. 1 on payment of Rs.60,000 or the sum fixed by the Court, be granted with costs. Through the amendment application, as mentioned above, the words "Ziman No.2" were sought to be added after Ziman No.1 in the prayer clause apparent to meet the objection as to partial pre-emption taken in the written statement.
5. The learned trial Court allowed the amendment application as it was of the view that in paras. 1 and 2 of the plaint, the entire land which was sold has been mentioned and as such in the prayer clause of the plaint the said words sought to be added were inadvertantly missed and that it was in the interest of justice to allow the said prayer. Admittedly a copy of the sale-deed was also filed alongwith the plaint. A bare reading of the plaint would show that the plaintiff was pre-empting the entire land sold vide sale-deed dated 23-11-1978 and this was specifically stated in para. 3 {{urdu text}} of the plaint. It is accepted principle of construction of documents that document as a whole is to be read. This equally applies to the pleadings of the parties and the relief is to be allowed reading the plaint as a whole. Reading the plaint as a whole, it cannot be said that rights in the "Shamlat" were not claimed, in the instant case.
6. Be that as it may, by allowing the amendment neither nature of the suit changed nor any new plea of cause of action was allowed to be introduced. The reading of the plaint does not support the contention that the entire transaction of sale was not pre-empted. The learned trial Court had thus not acted either illegally or with material irregularity. The amendments are to be allowed liberally so as to advance the interest of justice and technicalities alone cannot be allowed to prevail. So as to defeat the justice. See Syed Akhlaque Hussain and another v. Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore PLD 1977 SCMR 284. In this view of the matter, the view taken in the Baghdadul Jadid's case is distinguishable and moreover the inadvertant mistake made in the instant case was not of the type which was subject-matter of Baghdadul Jadid's case. I may add that in the circumstances of this case, the order allowing the amendment does not amount to "case decided" and as such the revision would not be competent in view of the rule laid down in 1971 SCMR 507. In view of the above the other cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the other points argued by the parties need not be noticed.
7. For the reasons given above, this revision petition is dismissed with costs.