MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM J:- This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calls in question the order of the District Judge, Sialkot dated 28th October, 1984 dismissing the revision petition 5 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 2nd of October, 1984 of the trial Court.
2. The dispute arises out of a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner dated 29th September, 1976 whereby he had undertaken to alienate an area of 16 Kanals 10 marlas of land to the said respondent. In the written statement filed by the petitioner it was stated that he had aj^need to sell the land in question but he was not owner of the land. Later on an application was filed by the respondent under Order 6 rule 17 C.P.C, for amendment of the plaint whereby he sought to substitute another piece of land measuring 9 Kanals situated in the same village instead of the land mentioned in the agreement to sell. This application was allowed by the trial Court as also by the Additional District Judge, These two orders have been assailed by filing this constitution petition.
3. From the facts narrated above it is quite evident that by allowing the amendment the subject matter of the suit itself has been changed. Respondent No. 1 had based his suit on agreement to sell dated 29th September, 1976 wherein the area agreed to be sold was given as 16 Kanlas 10 Marlas and the specific square number as also Khasra number have been mentioned therein. The same description was given of the land in the original plaint but by the proposed amendment another area belonging to the defendant un-connected with the transaction was sought to be substituted for the area to which the agreement related. Though, it is correct, that the power to allow amendment, should be liberally exercised and at technically view of the matter should not be taken but it is equally well settled that no amendment which changes the subject matter of the lis can be allowed. Reference in this connection may be made to Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others versus Sarsa Khan and others (PLD 1985 S.C.345). The two Courts below have clearly acted contrary to law declared by the superior Courts in allowing the amendment.
4. It was objected on behalf of the respondents that no constitutional petition can be maintained against a revisional order passed in the trial Court. This argument of the learned counsel is misconceived and cannot be accepted in view of the rule laid down in Muhammad Zaheer versus Lai Muhammad etc. (1988 S.C.M.R. 322) wherein it was observed that it cannot be laid down as a rule that in no case the constitutional petition can be maintained against a revisional order.
In view of what has been stated above this petition is accepted, the impugned orders passed by respondents No.2 and 3 are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. There shall be no order as to costs.