' This Civil Revision calls in question the judgment/decree, dated the 1st of April, 1978, of the learned Addl. District Judge, Sialkot, whereby the petitioners-plaintiff's appeal was dismissed.
2. In their suit the petitioners sought a declaration that they had purchased the land in dispute initially under an oral agreement, dated the 23rd of March, 1971, for a sum of Rs,1,800, and later under a written agreement, dated the 14th of July, 1971, affirming the original transaction. They asserted that they had paid up the entire consideration amount to the respondent and that the latter in turn had delivered possession to them as vendees. Since no mutation culd be attested in regard to the sale, they statedly apprehended interference in their possession by the respondent- vendor and hence the suit for a mere declaration.
3. In reply, the respondent-defendant denied the sale, receipt of any amount and delivery of possession of the land to the petitioners. He added that the so-called agreement, dated the 14th of July, 1971, was forged by them and that it had no legal effect against his interest. Still further, he submitted that the suit in its present form was incompetent presumably because the petitioners were not in possession.
4. Appropriate issues arising out of these pleadings were framed by the trial Court which ultimately dismissed the suit on the ground that seeking mere declaration without asking for specific performance of the contract was not tenable. In the course of appeal, the petitioners made an application for permission to amend the plaint so that they could add a prayer for specific performance. This application was opposed. The learned Addl. District Judge did not accept it and in the sequel dismissed the entire appeal.
5. Mr. Taqi Ahmad Khan, Advocate for the petitioners placed reliance upon Ahmad, etc. v. Fazal Muhammad PLD 1978 Lah. 1394 and Mst. Ghulam Bibi, etc. v. Sarsa Khan, etc. PLD 1985 SC 345 in support of his contention that the amendment to seek the relief of specific performance should have been allowed as a matter of course subject to awarding suitable costs to the opposite side on account of the inconvenience etc. Likely to be caused to them. He stressed that the attitude of the Courts in regard to amendments has to be a bit liberal rather than technical because the purport of all rules was to advance justice rather than to stifle it. He added that even the plea of limitation could not be kept in mind to refuse amendment and emphasized that in the case of Mst.
Ghulam Bibi, etc., the prayer for specific performance was allowed to be added by the Supreme Court. Referring to his own case, he urged that he had made the relevant application before the learned Addl. District Judge and that neither much of delay nor neglect nor contumacious conduct on their part in omitting to seek the relief of specific performance was involved.
6. Mr. Wali Muhammad Chaudhry, Advocate for the respondent opposed the revision petition mainly stating that the petitioners-plaintiffs did not show the requisite vigilance in seeking amendment of the plaint despite the fact that an objection to the form of the suit was raised by the respondent at the earliest in his written statement. He added that they took time even before the lower appellate Court and came up with the application for amending the plaint when the case was set for arguments.
7. The law relating to amendment especially in regard to the format of suit has undergone a considerable change. It is true that when the suit was filed in the year 1974, such objections to its maintainability were invariably accepted, but the trend of judgments in later times was entirely different. The two cases cited by Mr. Taqi Ahmad Khan for the revision petitioners, laid it down succinctly that the so-called delay, inconvenience, or other reason to oppose the amendment may be compensated by awarding adequate costs and that the same may not he used as grounds for refusing amendment. Indeed, as already remarked, the Supreme Court in the Mst. Ghulam Bibi, etc.'s case, allowed amendment to transform the prayer notwithstanding the fact that it was sought after a long time. The same rule has to be applied here. The suit in its present form was otherwise filed in time. The proposed amendment did not involve any drastic change in it, nor could it be completely divorced from the consequences of the sale relied upon in the plaint. In other words, it was simply consequential. Rules relating to amendment etc. Etc. Were really tools for the advancement of justice and may not be used as stumbling blocks in its way. This was the view propounded in Mrs. Dino Manekji Chinoy, etc. v. Muhammad Matin PLD 1983 SC 693. The view adopted by the lower appellate Court cannot be sustained.
8. As a result, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned judgment and decree are set aside; and the petitioner's application for amendment of the plaint to add a prayer for specific performance of the agreement to sell, is allowed. Of course, they shall pay a sum of Rs,1,500 as costs. The case will go to the trial Court where the parties shall appear on the 15th of April, 1991. After allowing amendment of the plaint as indicated above, the Court shall give an opportunity to the respondent to file a fresh written statement against the same and then proceed to decide the case in accordance with law.