1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendant's side; against the grant of permission to the respondent/plaintiff's side to amend the latters 'pleadings'.
2. ' Learned counsel has vehemently contended that the amendment should not have been allowed after such a long time nearly two decades.
3. It is no doubt correct that the point raised by the learned counsel is relevant consideration for grant or refusal of amendment; but, at the same time the delay is to be put in juxtaposition to the harm caused to the cause of justice on the ground of technicality; particularly when the law does not place any limitation in this behalf as held in Ahsan Kausar and others v. Ahmad Zaman Khan 1986 SCMR 1796. It has also been relied upon in the impugned judgment.
4. ' Learned counsel next contended that in the case of Ahsan Kausar afore-noticed another judgment of this Court was relied upon namely Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others v. Sarsa Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 345. He argued that some of the features in the case of Mst. Ghulam Bibi arc distinguishable from the present case.
5. ' After hearing him on this question at some length we have not been able to discover any real distinction. Finding no force in this petition leave to appeal is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.