1. ' NAIMUDDIN, J.--Muhammad Akram Khan, Muhammad Aslam Khan and Ansar Khan respondents 1 to 3 (hereinafter called the respondents) filed a suit being No,250 of 1983 against Muhammad Akram and 19 others (hereinafter called the appellants) for possession through partition claiming 18 marlas of land as their share out of khasra No,524 situated within the revenue estate of Adil Zai, Tehsil and District Attock, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Attock. In the plaint it was averred that the appellants as well as respondents were joint owners of the land and that same had merged in the Abadi of village Adil Zai resulting in the enhancement of its value and that the respondents having a share of 18 marlas in the khasra had built a house upon a piece of land measuring 2/3 kanals. It is stated in the plaint that the respondents had filed a suit for permanent injunction from raising construction but the same was withdrawn and the fresh suit for possession through partition is filed.
2. ' In the written statement filed by the appellants they objected to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court as the suit land was agricultural in character and claimed that in view of the provisions of section 172 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 the Revenue Court alone had jurisdiction in the matter. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following preliminary issues: "(1) Whether the suit is hit by principle of res judicata? OPD
(2) Whether the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit?"
3. ' Before the trial Court only documentary evidence was produced. Considering the evidence the trial Court by its judgment dated 10-11-1984, held that the suit was not barred by the principle of res judicata but upheld the objection to its jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the land was agricultural land and therefore ordered the return of the plaint for presentation to the Court having jurisdiction in the matter. The Additional District Judge, Attock, upheld the order in appeal by the judgment dated 27th November, 1985. The respondents preferred a revision before the High Court and during the hearing of the revision, they sought permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The High Court by its order dated 2-7-1986, allowed the withdrawal of the suit with permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action subject to payment of Rs,500 as costs to the appellants.
4. ' The appellants, therefore, have filed the present appeal by leave. It was submitted before the High Court that "the plaint in the suit was not correctly and properly drafted by a Mofussil lawyer in that the correct description of the property as also its surroundings were not given in detail therein and in the absence of proper description, true character of the suit property whether it was agricultural land or village immovable property amenable to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, was not highlighted and therefore, properly appreciated." It was further submitted that a considerable part of the suit khasra was shown under village abadi in the revenue record. It was also pointed out that site plan of the property could not be produced which was absolutely necessary for proper, satisfactory and correct decision of the suit.
5. ' On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that there appeared no formal defect in the plaint nor did any other sufficient ground exist to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.
6. ' In granting the request for withdrawal of the suit with permission to file fresh suit the reasons which prevailed with the learned Judge in the High Court may be stated in his own words: "From the plaint it appears that it was not correctly and property drafted to bring out the necessary character of the suit property. For the action proposed to be taken, reliance can be safely placed on Gurprit Singh and another v. Punjab Government (AIR 1946 Lah.429), where the Court was pleased to permit withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit in somewhat similar circumstances. Therefore, I consider that this was a fit case in which the power vested in the Court by virtue of Order XXIII, Rule 1, C.P.C. Be exercised in favour of the plaintiffs."
7. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the High Court erred in allowing withdrawal of the suit with permission to file fresh suit at the revisional stage.
8. Without going into this question we find that the grounds submitted for withdrawal of the suit were such that the defects could be remedied by allowing the amendment of the plaint so as to fully describe the land with boundaries of the constructed area and also annex to the plaint a site plan as required. It is well settled that amendment of the plaint could be allowed at any stage of the proceeding. However, reference may be had to Karamat All and another v. Muhammad Yunus Haji and others (P L. D 1963 SC 191), wherein it was observed by this Court as follows: "That this Court has the power to grant leave to amend even at the stage in which the matter is in the present case, is not denied by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents."
9. ' The amendment was, therefore, allowed in spite of objection that a legal right had accrued to the other side by lapse of time. We may mention that in the case under appeal the question of limitation is not involved. Therefore, in order to do complete justice in accordance with the Order )
10. (XXIII rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, we would set aside the impugned judgments and orders and remand the suit to the trial Court with permission to the respondents to amend the plaint on payment of costs of Rs,500 already awarded by High Court so as to clearly state the jurisdictional facts and remove other formal defects and annex the site plan.
11. ' On amended plaint being filed it will be open to the appellants to file their written statement wherein they may take any objections available to them under the law which will be decided according to law.
12. ' The parties shall bear their own costs.