Through this constitutional petition, Allah Bachaya petitioner wants this Court to declare the order dated 19-11-1986 of the Civil Judge, Rahimyar Khan and order dated 1-2-1988 of the Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading to this petition briefly are that Allah Bachaya filed suit for possession on the basis of title against Muhammad Afzal respondent No.l. During the pendency of the suit, he moved application for permission to amend plaint. The application was rejected by the learned trial Court.
Feeling aggrieved, he filed revision which was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan who dismissed it on 1-2-1988, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court had illegally rejected the application of the petitioner and that the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit. Reliance has been placed on Bahadur Shah and 2 others v. Sharaf and 9 others PLD 1973 Lah.
513 and Mst. Wazir Begum v, Mst. Sardar Begum and 7 others 1979 CLC 72 to further contend that permission to amend the plaint could be given at any stage of the proceedings.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that it was within the discretion of the trial Court to allow or refuse prayer for the amendment of the plaint, that the trial Court has given reasons in support of its order; that the appellate Court had also jurisdiction to set aside or confirm the A order of the trial Court. The learned Appellate Court has also applied mind and given reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by it. The learned Courts below have not flouted the provisions of relevant law. I do not see any defect of jurisdiction in the impugned orders. The submissions made by the learned counsel do not make out a case for interference with the impugned orders in exercise ofthe Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. For what has been said above, the petition is dismissed.