1. ' MUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA, C J.--Relevant facts leading to present Constitutional petition are that on Ist of January, 1983 respondent No,1 filed civil suit against petitioner and respondent No,2 seeking declaration and permanent injunction concerning House No,10-9/2875-H situated on Jail Road near Abdullah Jan Colony, Kalat Street, Quetta. Following reliefs were sought:-- "It is, therefore, prayed that a decree may please be passed in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant:
(i) Declaring that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the house bearing No,10-9/2875-H, near Abdullah Jan Colony, Kalat Street, Jail Road, Hudda, Quetta.
(ii) The defendant No,2 be restrained from taking possession of any portion of the said house or raising any construction over the same.
(iii) Cost of the suit may be awarded.
(iv) Any other relief which this Honourable Court deem fit in the circumstances of the suit may also be awarded."
2. ' Petitioner filed written statement on 5th of March, 1983, whereas respondent No,2 submitted written statement on 9-4-1983. They vehemently resisted the claim in suit. It was specifically mentioned that Mst. Rahat Begurn was owner of property but somehow same was declared evacuee. She challenged evacuee status of house before High Court of West Pakistan, which was finally decided in her favour vide judgment dated 25-6-1974 passed in Writ Petition No,22/63.
3. Portion of disputed property was purchased by Ikram Bari respondent No,2 vide Mutation No,1064.
4. Petitioner and respondent No,2 thus claimed exclusive ownership of property and prayed for dismissal of suit. Learned Senior Civil Judge, Quetta on 21-2-1984 framed following 7 issues and gave parties opportunity of leading evidence:--
(i) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the disputed house and has lawfully purchased it from Fazal-ur-Rehman?
(iii) Whether the defendant No,1 is occupying the house in suit as a tenant of the plaintiff?
(iv) Whether defendant No,2 falsely claims to be the owner of the house in suit?
(v) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against defendant No,1?
(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree claimed?
(vii) Relief.
5. ' During pendency of the matter, towards 8th of July, 1991 plaintiff/respondent (Noor Muhammad) submitted an application under Order 6, Rule 17, r/w Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Praying for amendment of plaint. Petitioner resisted said application. Learned Civil Judge-I, Quetta by means of order dated 23rd February, 1992 rejected the same observing that proposed amendment would completely change nature of suit and cause of action. Respondent Noor Muhammad feeling aggrieved from said decision on 12th March, 1992 preferred Civil Revision No,1 of 1992 before learned District Judge, Quetta which was eventually rejected vide judgment dated 24th February, 1993. Operative portion is reproduced below:- "I have carefully perused the impugned order 'in the light of plaint, statement, evidence recorded so far, the nature/contents of documents relied upon, respective contentions as adduced and the relevant provisions of C.P.C. As enumerated in Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. It is an admitted position that the suit was filed on 1-1-1983 and is about to be finalized as evidence put forth by the parties recorded along with the statement of petitioner and respondent. It would thus become imperative to see whether the application in question should have been allowed in the interest of justice or otherwise. As a general rule leave to amend may be granted as the object of Rule 17, C.P.C. Is' to an amendment for the purpose of determining the real question in dispute between the parties. That being the purpose for which an amendment is allowed, no amendment should be allowed which would introduce or totally new and different case. There is no cavil to the position that all rules of Court are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice and . It is therefore, esseptial that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to that purpose, so that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and should always be liberally exercised but no power has yet been given to enable one distinct cause of action to be substituted for another nor to change by means of amendment, the subject-matter' of the suit. It transpires from the language as used in Rule 17, C.P.C. That no limitations whatsoever have been placed on the powers of a Court regarding amendments of the pleadings of any party but no amendment would be allowed in a plaint or written statement if it would change the whole complexion of the case or is sought to be made long after the litigation had started PLD 1960 Lah. 975, PLD 1961 BJ 62. The amendments if allowed would certainly convert the suit into another of a different and inconsistent character and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to allow the application in question moved after about 8 long years when the suit was instituted and accordingly the same has rightly been rejected and resultantly the impugned order does not call for any interference. A comparison in between the prayer clauses of this Revision Petition and that of the suit instituted on 1-1-1983 would clearly show that (suit instituted on 1-1-1983 would clearly show that) there is a lot of difference and as such it is not a case of simple amendment as envisaged under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. And hence cannot be allowed. The matter may be proceeded with ahead and a notice be issued to the parties for any date as may be fixed by the. Court."
6. ' It may be seen that subsequently he filed petition for review before learned District Judge, Quetta.
7. The successor Presiding Officer, accepted the review petition by means of order dated 15-11-1993 recalling earlier order dated 24-2-1993, passed by his predecessor, and allowed amendment in the plaint as prayed in the original application subject to payment of Rs,2,000 as costs.
8. ' Last-mentioned decision causing permission to amend the plaint by exercising powers of review has been challenged through present Constitutional petition.
9. ' Mr. Muhammad Mohsin Javed learned counsel for petitioner argued that trial Court as well as learned District Judge had dismissed application seeking amendment of plaint by specifying cogent reasons. There was neither any defect, illegality, mistake nor error apparent on record which could justify exercising powers of review. He stressed hard, that proposed amendment intended to completely change nature and structure of original suit filed by respondent Noor Muhammad therefore, successor District Judge not only exceeded his jurisdiction in exercising authority of review, but also transgressed real scope provided under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. By permitting drastic changes in the plaint.
10. ' Whereas on the other hand Mr. Basharatullah, Advocate emphatically argued that powers of review are essentially directed under section 114 r/w Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C., therefore, impugned order dated 15-11-1993 passed by successor District Judge was wholly with jurisdiction as such could not be challenged by invoking Constitutional Jurisdiction. He further canvassed that factum of ownership concerning suit property was already asserted in the plaint, therefore, Court was competent to allow consequential changes by incorporating proposed reliefs to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. We have perused the record and carefully considered arguments advanced by learned counsel for parties. We feel that, for appreciating main grievance, it would be appropriate to produce below section 114 and Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C.:-- "114. Review.--(1) Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved--
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.
(2) Nothing contained in subsection (1) shall apply to a review of any judgment pronounced or order made by the Supreme Court."
(ii) Order XLVII, Rule 1. Any person considering himself aggrieved--
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred;
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order."
11. ' Bare perusal of above provisions would show that powers of review can. Certainly be exercised by the same Court provided new and important ground suggesting glaring mistakes or errors apparent on record are pointed out. In the instant case objections concerning decision of High Court in favour of Mst. Rahat Begum through judgment dated 25-6-1974 passed in Writ Petition No,22/63 was duly pleaded in the written statement. Respondent No, 1 throughout was aware about said legal and factual aspect. Learned Civil Judge as well as learned District Judge while dismissing application for amendment had exhaustively considered all the factors and legal implications. Learned successor Judge while dilating upon powers of review himself candidly observed that conditions contained in above-referred provisions were not specifically attracted.
12. However, according to him failure to follow dictum laid to Hon'ble Supreme Court provides reasonable basis for exercising review.
13. ' The observations in that behalf, having detailed reasoning's, are reproduced below for ready reference:- "Admittedly in the present case no ground regarding discovery of new and important matter or evidence has been raised nor any ground. Regarding any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record has been agitated. Hence how, the ground raised by the petitioner is to be examined for ascertaining that whether there exists any sufficient reason for review of judgment passed by this Court. The grounds that this Court failed to properly interpret the law and failed to take notice that without the proposed amendments the dispute between the parties cannot be adjudicated and reached to incorrect conclusion, cannot be considered sufficient reason for review as reconsidering the facts already taken into consideration by this Court would amount to sit in appeal on its own judgment. However, failure to take note of the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court is held to be error meriting review of the judgment."
14. ' It would thus be pertinent to examine whether proposed amendment was necessary for proper adjudication of grievance agitated in the original plaint. Similarly it is imperative to properly evaluate whether proposed amendment was in consonance with relief claimed in the original suit or intended at introducing absolutely new cause of action by changing nature or structure of the suit. It was also necessary to ascertain whether dictum laid by Honourable Supreme Court regarding proposed amendment had applicability keeping in view facts of present case. At this stage in our opinion it becomes relevant to examine relief in the original suit which primarily aims at declaration of ownership and restraining respondent `Ikram Bari' from securing possession of the house or raising superstructure over the same. Whereas through proposed amendment plaintiff/respondent intended to introduce that (i) petitioner is tenant of plaintiff/respondent in the suit premises, (ii) Mutation No, 974 dated 28-6-1981 and sale deed dated 16-3-1982 executed in favour of `Ikram Bari' having been registered with Sub-Registrar, Quetta on 18-3-1982 and consequential mutations carried out in revenue record had no legal effect, (iii) correction of revenue record, cancellation of mutations carried out during years 1981 and 1982. Thus proposed amendments are clearly beyond the scope of original suit. No doubt mere delay for seeking amendment is not fatal, but despite knowledge conscious silence for eight years, certainly creates valuable right in favour of petitioner and respondent No,2, which cannot be conveniently ignored, unless justifiable explanation is furnished. Reported judgments of superior Courts relied upon by learned successor Judge while exercising review, support existence of jurisdiction for permitting amendment at any stage of proceedings; provided requirements contained in Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. Are not violated. It is settled principle of law that plaintiff cannot be allowed to substantially amend the pleadings by introducing new cause of action or change the context of original suit. The principle laid in (i) PhD 1985 SC 345, PLD 1982 AJK (SC) 64, (iii) 1987 CLC 1732 and (iv) 1977 SCMR 284 provide sufficient guidelines in that behalf. Factually considering peculiar circumstances of this case if amendment is allowed by changing original nature or structure of the suit by introducing new cause of action; the principle laid by Honourable superior Courts would be contravened, rather than being followed. Additionally it may be. Seen that revision petition filed by respondent Noor Muhammad was dismissed by learned District Judge on 24-2-1993. Order XLVII, Rule 2, C.P.C.
15. Controls the powers of successor Judge to review earlier decisions. Surprisingly disregarding the limits prescribed by aforementioned provisions, review petition was accepted. It is apparent that main object providing powers of review, is to enable same forum jurisdiction for correcting its own errors which have inadvertently occasioned, on account of some defect, clerical or arithmetical mistake, discovery of new or important matter which was not within the knowledge and could not be produced by due diligence or any other sufficient cause. However, such authority cannot be invoked for rectifying improper appreciation of legal or factual aspects, erroneous assumption of facts already existing on record procedural mistake, negligence of party possibility of having different view or any similar defects.
16. Learned successor District Judge obviously transgressed his jurisdiction and power and overlooked barriers contained in Order XLVII, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. By assuming authority of review without specifying cogent and justifiable reasons for interfering with earlier order. Since act of successor Judge glaringly lacked jurisdiction, therefore, Constitution petition is maintainable and objection raised by other side has no sanction.
17. ' Accordingly we hold that impugned judgment dated 15-11-1993, passed by learned successor District Judge was totally without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Consequently judgment of trial Court dated 25-2-1992 and District Judge exercising revisional authority dated 24-2-1993 should hold the field. Petition is accepted in above terms. Parties are however, left to bear their own costs.