On 2-6-1977, Allah Wasaya respondent Filed a suit against the petitioners for possession by pre- emption of agricultural land measuring 96 kanals and 1 marla situate in Basti Mithu East Shujabad on the basis of being Khewatdar. The suit was resisted. The issues were framed. The parties led their evidence. The trial Court decreed the suit on 29-6-1982. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the defendants---petitioners filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Multan, which was entrusted to Addl. District Judge, Multan. During the pendency of the appeal, Allah Wasaya plaintiff-respondent filed an application for permission to amend the plaint to correct the name of Murid Hussain defendant stating that the name of the father of Murid Hussain was inadvertently mentioned as Ahmad Bakhsh in the plaint. The notice of this application was given to the defendants-petitioners. Mr. Abdul Qadir Hashmi Advocate, counsel for the defendants-petitioners made following statement before the learned Addl. District Judge:-- So the appellate Court allowed the prayer made by the plaintiff---respondent for the amendment of the plaint on 3-9-1983. On 8-9-1983, the defendants-petitioners made application before the learned Addl. District Judge seeking permission to file additional written statement to the amended plaint. This application was rejected on 6-12-1983. Hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on the presentation of the amended plaint by the plaintiff-respondent, the defendants-petitioners were entitled to file the additional written statement as a matter of right. The learned counsel for the respondent is of the view that since no material amendment was made in the plaint and the name of father of Murid Hussain was simply corrected, therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned order.
3.I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel .For the petitioners. Since the permission to amend the plaint was allowed on the conditional statement of the defendants/petitioners there fore, in all fairness to the parties, the appellate Court should not have declined the prayer of the petitioners to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and it was premature to determine the legal value of the additional written statement which was yet to be filed.
4. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the application of the petitioners for permission to file additional written statement is allowed. The appeal is still pending before the learned Addl. District Judge. The record of the case will immediately be sent back to the appellate Court. The petitioners will file additional written statement before the appellate Court and the appellate Court will decide the appeal in accordance with law within four months under intimation to the Addl. Registrar of this Bench.