1. ' MAMOON KAZI, J.---This appeal calls in question the order dated 6-3-1981, passed by the learned Single Judge granting an application filed by the respondent under Order 6, rule 17, C.P.C. It may be pointed out that the respondent had filed a suit in this Court, as he was aggrieved by the permission granted to the appellant for installation of a Petrol Pump at Plots No, A-21 and 22, situated in Shah Faisal Colony, the following reliefs were sought by the respondent:-- ' "(a) Declare that the proposed construction/installation of a petrol pump on the aforesaid plots A- 21 and 22, is illegal, not in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Karachi Development Authority and Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and otherwise unwarranted and undesirable due to potential traffic, fire and health for the plaintiffs, their families and other residents of the adjoining plots.
(b) Declare that the permission given to the previous owner of Plots NosA-21 and A-22, Shah Faisal Town, Jinnah Avenue, Malir Halt Karachi i,e, Mr. Shahab Ahmed, resident of P-37, Block VI, P.E.C.H.S., Karachi, allowing amalgamation of the said plots and their conversion from residential to commercial purposes for the installation of a petrol pump thereon, is without any lawful authority and beyond the jurisdiction of defendant No,3.
(c) Grant of mandatory injunction directing the defendant No,1 not to construct, install and operate a petrol pump on Plots A-21 and A-22 Shah Faisal Town, Jinnah Avenue, Malir Halt, Karachi.
(d) Grant a mandatory injunction directing the defendant Nos,2 from granting any permission to the defendant No,1 for construction/installation/operation of the proposed petrol pump on the aforesaid plots i,e,, A-21 and A-22, Shah Faisal Town, Jinnah Avenue, Malir Halt, Karachi.
(e) Grant a mandatory injunction, directing the defendant No3 to cancel the permission given to the previous owner of Plots A-21 and A-22 aforesaid of Shahab Ahmed, resident of P-37, Block-VI, P.E.C.H.S. Karachi, allowing amalgamation of the aforesaid plots and their conversion from residential plots to commercial plots for the installation of a petrol pump thereon.
(f) Grant cost of the suit to the plaintiffs.
(g) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this suit, in the interest of justice."
2. ' It may be pointed out that the petitioner had applied for grant of an ad interim injunction but after ad interim injunction was granted by the Court the appellant succeeded in installing the petrol pump on the said plot. Consequently an application was made under Order 1, rule 10, C.P.C. Seeking permission of the Court to implead certain defendants as parties to the suit but the said application was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court who heard the application vide order dated 5-3-1989. In the meanwhile, High Court Appeal filed by the respondent against the dismissal of his application under Order 39, rule 1 and 2, C.P.C. Was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court.
3. ' Thereafter the respondent filed another application under Order 6, rule 17 seeking consequential reliefs under the altered circumstances as after rejection of the respondent's application for interim stay, the said petrol pump was installed by the appellant on the plots in question as has been pointed out earlier. It is not necessary for us to reproduce the amendments sought by the appellant which already find mention in the impugned order but suffice it to say that the learned Single Judge did not fmd the siad amendments to be of such a nature which would alter the complexion of the suit and therefore, permission was granted to the respondent to amend the plaint in terms of the prayer made in the said application. Learned counsel has strenuously argued that since the earlier prayer made by the respondent for amendment of the plaint had been rejected by the learned Single Judge, granting of the second application tantamounts to review of the first order made by another learned Judge. The second contention of the learned counsel was that in fact after rejection of the prayer of the respondent for interim injunction and after installation of the petrol pump on the said plot the suit has become infructuous, therefore, the learned Single Judge fell in error by allowing the said amendments.
4. ' We find no force in any of the contentions. The first application which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court was made under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. As the respondent had sought permission to join certain defendants as parties. Obviously if any party was joined as additional party to the proceedings the same would have required consequential amendments in the plaint as well. Such application was dismissed as pointed out above. The application which was filed under Order 6, rule 17 of the C.P.C. Appears to have been necessitated by the change of circumstances of the case. It may be pointed out that amendment in the pleadings can be sought at any stage of the case, provided that the amendment sought should not change the original nature of the suit. In this regard, under the circumstances of the present case, we are inclined to agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge made in the impugned order, that the amendments sought by the respondent were not such as would change the complexion of the suit.
5. The amendments, as we have pointed out, were necessitated on account of the change of the circumstances. Reliance appears to have been placed by the learned Single Judge on the case of Muhammad Essa v. Haseena Begum (1987 CLC 1723) which was the case decided by a Division Bench of this Court. The ratio of this case, no doubt, appears to be attracted to the facts of the present case. We are also unable to agree with the second contention of the learned counsel that if the prayer for amendment of the plaint had been declined, the suit would have become infructuous and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in granting the request for amendment which has resulted in survival of the suit against the respondent.
6. ' In the result, we find no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.