This writ petition assails the order dated 6-12-1988, passed by a learned additional District Judge, Faisalabad, in his revisional jurisdiction.
2. The dispute between the petitioner and respondents Nos.3 to 6, hereinafter referred to as the respondents, pertains to 14 marlas of land forming part of square No.39 of Chak No. 468/GB, District Faisalabad. The petitioner has filed a suit against the respondents for specific performance of agreement in regard to the aforementioned land.
3. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner had filed a suit against .Tie respondents for declaration regarding the same land in July, 1985. The said earlier suit was , however, withdrawn with permission to file a fresh suit.
4. In the subsequently instituted suit far specific performance of the contract the respondents filed written statement but soon thereafter they moved an application for being permitted to file afresh written statement on the ground that due to inadvertence they earlier filed the same written statement which they had filed in the earlier declaratory suit which was withdrawn by the petitioner. The learned trial Court declined the respondents' request vide order dated 2-7--1988 as the learned Civil Judge treated the respondents' application as one for amendment of the written statement.
4-A. The respondents went in revision against the order of the learned Civil Judge before the learned Addl. District Judge, who through the impugned order has allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the learned Civil Judge. He has thus permitted the respondents to file fresh written statement in place of the written statement already filed. Thus, the present writ petition.
5. It has been mainly contended that through the impugned order, the respondents have been permitted to raise inconsistent pleas qua the one already taken up by them in the earlier filed written statement and thus the permission granted through the impugned order offends against the law of pleadings as enunciated in Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
6. After careful consideration and minute analysis of the petitioner's contention it has been found that there is no substance in the contention inasmuch as factually this is not a case of amendment of pleadings. Through the impugned order the respondents have been allowed to substitute a fresh written statement for the one which they had earlier filed as the earlier written statement had been filed inadvertently as it was the same written statement which was filed in the previously withdrawn suit seeking declaration in regard to the land in dispute. The impugned order in these circumstances, is unexceptionable because it was necessary to be made for the just and final decision of the dispute between the parties.
7. For the foregoing reasons no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court vis-a-vis the impugned order is warranted. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
H.B.T./F-137/L