1. ' This is a revision petition by the plaintiff from a decision of learned Civil Judge, Lahore allowing partial amendment to the plaint. It arises out of an action for specific performance of a contract for sale of land entered into between petitioner and respondent. Facts relevant for purposes of the revision petition are: 53 Kanals, 16 Marlas of land situate as mauza Kamahan in Tehsil and District Lahore, part of Cantonment limits of Lahore, is owned by Zafar Ullah Khan son of Ali Ahmed hereinafter, referred to as respondent. On 10-7-1989, he entered into a contract for its sale with the United Co-operative Housing Society Limited 135-E/1 Gulberg III Lahore, for an agreed price of Rs,26,90,000 at the flat rate of Rs,4,00,000 per acre. Terms of the sale agreement were reduced to writing on the same day. Rs, 4,000 in cash and Rs,4.,96,000 through a pay order drawn on Allied Bank were received in advance towards the sale price at the time of entering into an agreement for sale of the land. One and a half year time was fixed for finalization of the sale and the actual date fixed in the agreement for that purpose was 10-1-1991. It was agreed between the parties that balance consideration of Rs,21,90,000 shall be payable at the time of final sale, before the Registration Authority. As sale could not take place on the agreed terms, the petitioner-Society laid an action for specific performance of sale agreement for compelling the respondent to complete the sale, upon receipt of balance consideration. Suit was instituted on 9-1-1991 in the Civil Court at Lahore. Simultaneous with the institution of the suit, the petitioner applied for a restraining order addressed to the respondent to prohibit him from further alienating the land in suit. On 14-1-1991, the trial Court issued a conditional restraint order subject to deposit of the balance consideration in the sum of Rs,21,90,000 within fifteen days in Court. It appears from the record that balance price payable for the land was not deposited as directed in the restraint order and the condition subject to which it was to operate was not observed by the petitioner. Upon gaining knowledge of the suit for specific performance filed against him, the respondent submitted an application under order XV, rule 1 Civil Procedure Code on 11-4-1991 expressing his willingness to execute the sale deed upon receiving the balance consideration of Rs,21,90,000. The trial Court entertained the application and issued notice on it to the petitioner for 20-4-1991. Petitioner gave reply to the above said application on 244-1991. In course of hearing arguments on this application, parties seem to have agreed for decision of the payable price for the land on Holy oath. Upon recording the offer and acceptance, proceedings were adjourned to 29-4-1991 for personal appearance of the petitioner in Court to make the desired statement. On 29-4-1991, petitioner's representative did not appear and the case was further adjourned to 11-5-1991. Record reveals that this matter was not processed further by the trial Court.
2. ' On 11-5-1991, the date of hearing fixed in the suit, petitioner submitted an appication under order VI, rule 17 Civil Procedure Code to amend the plaint for stating that a further sum of Rs,6,00,000 was paid to the respondent towards adjustment of the balance sale-price. The amendment proposed to the plaint was as follows:- "That the defendant received an amount of Rs,6,00,000 on 18-3-1991 from the plaintiff towards the sale price of the land."
3. ' With the application for amendment, photo-copies of a receipt dated 18-3-1991 and a cheque in the name of respondent drawn upon Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd., Liberty Market, Lahore were annexed. Respondent submitted a reply to the application seeking amendment and stated that he had received Rs,60,000 only through a cheque and the last line in receipt dated 18-3-1991 showing payment of Rs,5,40,000 to him on the same occasion was a subsequent interpolation in it.
4. Respondent filed a photo-copy of the receipt of even date which did not contain the line relating to payment of Rs,5,40,000. Upon visual examination and mutual comparison of the two receipts of even date, otherwise similar but, discordant on the disputed line relating to cash payment of Rs,5,40,000, the trial Court on 20-6-1991 gave permission to amend the plaint only to add payment of Rs,60,000 and as regards the rest did not agree with the petitioner and dismissed that part of the prayer. It held that only Rs,60,000 were shown to have been paid. It is this order of the trial Court that is sought to be revised by the petitioner.
5. ' It is urged that the trial Court acted illegally to shut out the proposed amendment as a whole upon totally incorrect legal premises. It is further submitted that the truth or falsity of the matter in proposed amendment was not germane to a summary decision at the intermediate stage of the proceedings when the Court was considering only the question of propriety for allowing or disallowing the proposed amendment to the pleadings. Learned counsel fortified his statement by reference to the cases in Keramat All and another v. Muhammad Yunus Haji and others PLD 1963 SC 191, Bahadur Shah 'and 2 others v. Sharaf and 9 others PLD 1973 Lahore 513, Bashir Ahmad Khan v.
6. Qaiser All Khan and 2 others PLD 1973 SC 507, Muhammad Yasin and others v. Wali Muhammad and others PLD 1983 Lahore 253, Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others v. Sarsa Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 345.
7. No doubt, the powers of the Court to allow amendment are vast and wide and may at any stage be appropriately exercised in the interest of justice but in built in the provisions enacted in order VI Rule, 17, Civil Procedure Code is seen that exercise of such far reaching discretionary powers must be governed by judicial considerations and wider the power and discretion conferred on the Court, greater ought to be the care and circumspection on part of it. One of the important considerations which should weigh with the Court is whether proposed amendment is bona fide and is necessary for the purpose of deciding the real matter in controversy between the parties. In Nirmala Bala Ghosh and others versus Balai Chand Ghosh and others AIR 1975 Calcutta 404, the Court said that power to get the plaint amended is subject to the discretion of the Judge and cannot be claimed as a matter of right or in all circumstances. Further, the question of amendment of the plaint depends upon the facts of individual case. The circumstances under which the prayer for amendment of the plaint is to be allowed, therefore, cannot be exhaustively enumerated. An imoprtant rider was attached saying that the principle has always been to do substantial justice and not to punish the plaintiff on a technical ground and that the power of the Court was not without fetters. Further, in Babulall Choukhani v. Hariprosad Roy AIR (31) 1944 Calcutta 72, M.K.
8. Krishna Rao v. Sri Gangadeswa rar Temple and other connected temples by trustees AIR (36) 1949 Madras 433, Pathikonda Gopala Rao v. Nagiri Pedda Kit amma AIR 1955 Andhra Pradesh 138, State Bank of India at Imphal v. Yumnam Gouramani Singh AIR 1970 Manipur 1, Mangal Dass Sant Ram Gauba v. Union of India and others AIR 1973 Delhi 96, Sheikh Shabbir Hussain (represented by his legal heirs) versus Abdul Raoof and another 1977 S CM R 287, it has been observed that the Court at the time of considering the question of amedment must not enter on its merits and give finding on truth or falsity of the proposed matter sought to be introduced in pleadings through amendment.
9. That matter, the Courts said, could be decided on an issue framed and evidence led at the trial by the parties. In Syed Akhlaq Hussain's case (Supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court dealing with the point observed that the question whether the allegations made in support of the amendment were true or false could not be decided summarily at the time of considering application made under Rule 17, Order VI of Code of Civil Procedure, unless of course, the matter was patent on the face of record. The observation at the end is a real cue to the whole matter.
10. Amongst others, an important consideration in a matter of the kind' is whether the applicant for amendment acted in good faith or conversely, the application is mala fide and if the Court upon careful sifting of all the circumstances in a particular case thinks that the applicant is not acting bona fide in seeking the amendment, it commits no error in refusing the amendment. As said above, the trial Court had upon careful examination of the two receipts, one filed by the petitioner and the other by respondent found that the application for amendment was not bona fide. The observation of the trial Court about interpolation/forgery of a material term in receipt dated 18-3- 1991 is not without force, and, upon my own examination of the original receipt filed in Court today by the petitioner's learned counsel and the photo-copy furnished by the c respondent in the trial Court, I could not easily shed the impression formed of them by the trial Court. Original receipt did not tally with the photo-copy produced by the respondent. On query from the Court as to who was the author of the receipt, and, whether the sum orally paid was shown in the accounts books of the petitioner, learned counsel was unable to assist. All that he said was that he was unaware and in absence of the petitioner could not commit either way. Apart from the glaring dissmilarity of the original receipt with its photo-copy about cash payment of Rs,5,40,000 on 18-3-1991, there are other unfavourable circumstances also which put the Court on serious enquiry. In two other similar cases filed by the petitioner, similar attempts were made for amending the plaint. In one case, petitioner-Society agreed to purchase 173 Kanals, 13 Marlas of land from Liaqat Ali and Sajjad Ali, brothers of the present respondent, on 2-7-1989 for a total consideration of Rs,86,82,500. A sum of Rs,15,55,000 i,e. Rs,5,000 in cash paid on 10-6-1989 and Rs,15,50,000 through a Pay Order on 2-7- 1989 were received by the defendants in that suit. On 22-1-1991, the petitioner field a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale in his favour, against Liaqat Ali and Sajjad Ali, in the Civil Court at Lahore. On 6-4-1991, the petitioner filed an application for amending the plaint to state that a further sum of Rs,20,00,000 was paid orally to the defendants in the suit and the balance consideration was reduced by payment of that amount. The defendants in the suit denied the receipt of oral payment of the said amount and opposed the amendment. By order dated. 20-6- 1991, the trial Court dismissed the petition for amendment, and, by a separate order passed on 27- 6-1991, on the application filed by the defendants under Order XV, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, decreed the suit for specific performance in favour of the petitioner subject to payment of Rs, 71, 27, 500 within one month. Similarly, the petitioner-Society, on 1-8-1989, agreed to purchase 53 Kanals, 15 Marlas of land in the same Mauza from one Mushtaq Ahmed for a total consideration of Rs, 23, 51,
562. Price fixed per Acre of the land was Rs, 3, 50,000. Out of the agreed sale price, Rs,5000 were paid in cash on 24-6-1989, and Rs, 2, 95,000 through a pay order dated 1-8-1990, drawn on Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd., Liberty Market, Lahore. Petitioner instituted the suit for specific performance against Mushtaq Ahmed, on 28-7-1990. On 22-4-1991, the petitioner applied for amendment to the plaint to state that a sum of Rs, 10,00,000 was orally paid to the defendant, in the suit on 2-4-1990.
11. The defendant in the suit resisted the proposed amendment and denied the receipt of oral payment of Rs, 10,00,000. By order dated 20-6-1991, the trial Court dismissed the petition for amendment to the plaint' and by a separate order passed on 27-6-1991, decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner subject payment to Rs, 19, 57, 562 within fifteen days of the order. It may be observed that the suit was decreed on the defendant's agreeing to it upon payment of balance consideration minus the oral payment of Rs, 10,00,000 denied by him. Incidentally, the petitioner- Society was represented in two suits i,e. The one which gave rise to instant civil revision, and, the other filed against Liaqat Ali and his brother Sajjad Ali by a common counsel, namely, ..Ch. Noor Muhammad Fazal, Advocate through whom the instant civil revision has been filed in this Court. In the suit filed against Mushtaq Ahmed, the petitioner-Society was represented by Ch. Mohammad Rafique Iqbal, Advocate. Prima facie speaking, the modus-operandi of the petitioner in all the three suits was identical and that factor put the Court on guard. Therefore, having due regard to the peculiar facts of the case and the kind of order made by the trial Court, it may not seem apposite to interfere and strike down the impugned order in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of the Court, because the petitioner has a remedy provided in section 105, Civil Procedure Code, to agitate the legality as well as D propriety of the impugned order in appeal from the final decree passed in the suit for specific performance. In support, reference can be made to Seth Nanak Chand Shadiram versus Amin Chand Pyarilal AIR 1970 Calcutta
8. In face of the above observations, I find no justification to interfere and direct that the revision petition be dismissed in limine.
12. Records be quickly returned.