' This revision petition has been filed against the order of Additional Sub-Judge, Kotli, passed on May 29, 1995, whereby, the amendment in the written statement was disallowed to the defendant- petitioners.
2. The facts forming the background of this revision petition are that two suits, one by Hokum Dad son of Sattar Din against Muhammad Sadiq s/o Dilawar, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 5, for declaration and permanent injunction, and the other by Muhammad Sadiq son of Dilawar, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 5, against Nazar Muhammad and others, were filed in the Court of Additional Sub-Judge, Kotli, on August 13, 1988 and July 5, 1989 respectively. Both the suits were consolidated. Necessary issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties were framed and parties led their evidence in support of their respective claims. An application to amend the written statement in para. 3 of the written statement filed in the case titled 'Muhammad Sadiq v. Nazar Muhammad and others', referred to above, was moved which, after receiving objections from the opposite side,' was disallowed through the impugned order.
3. Malik Muhammad Yusuf, the learned counsel for the petitioners maintained that the amendment sought to be made in the written statement was just and necessary for the purpose of determining the controversy between the parties. It was argued that the objection taken by the opposite side with regard to belated application, merits no consideration as, according the learned counsel for the petitioners, the amendment can be made at any stage of the proceedings. It was also argued that the learned trial Judge failed to apply his mind and wrongly held the proposed amendment as inconsistent and, as such, was illegally disallowed. On the other hand, Sardar Rehmatullah Khan, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the amendment application was mala fide one, which was moved to prolong the matter. It was also argued that the same alters the original pleadings and is inconsistent to those pleadings.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. The defendant-petitioners sought amendment by adding following words in para. 3 of the written statement, filed in the case titled "Muhammad Sadiq v. Nazar Muhammad and others" :-- {{URDU TEXT}}
5. It will be necessary to state that the suit filed by Hokum Dad is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Muhammad Sadiq, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 5, while the suit filed by Muhammad Sadiq is also for declaration and possession with regard to the land in dispute. The amendment application was moved in the case, 'Muhammad Sadiq v. Nazar Muhammad and others' which was inadvertently appended with the file, 'Hokum Dad v.
Muhammad Sadiq', in which proceedings were in progress. The learned trial Judge while disposing the amendment application, held it as inconsistent with the original pleadings. The learned trial Judge also made reference to para. 2 of the plaint of the case, "Muhammad Sadiq v. Nazar Muhammad and others". On the above basis, that learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that after admitting the fact of death of Gulab deceased in 1949 as .Mentioned in the above para., the amendment application according to the learned Judge, was in conflict with the original pleadings. It may be observed that the learned trial Judge was labouring under the wrong impression while referring the above plaint. As the said plaint, i,e, 'Muhammad Sadiq v. Nazar Muhammad and others' was not filed by the defendant-petitioners, but by the plaintiff- respondents, therefore, reference of Gulab's death in 1949 in that plaint, was hardly a ground to hold the present application as inconsistent. The defendant-petitioners only denied para. 2 of the plaint, referred to above and also para. 3 wherein the amendment was sought, as such the question of conflicting stands did not arise.
6. Under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C., the amendment can be effected at any stage of the proceedings provided it is just and necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The object of the rule is that if the amendment sought is necessary for the purpose of determining the real controversy, it should be allowed provided the other party is not prejudiced, which is discretionary with the Court and has to be exercised in accordance with judicial principles, to avoid multiplicity of suits and to be used for the purpose of furthering the ends of justice. It may be allowed where the applicant has acted in good faith but shall be refused where the application is mala fide or its effect would be to convert the character of the suit. It may also be observed that where it is just and necessary, even an alternative plea can also be allowed to be raised or a new ground or plea can be introduced. It may be clarified that introduction of fresh matter does not alter the nature of the suit. The principle applying to the application for amendment of the plaint can also be applied to the written statement. However, a defendant should not be allowed to make out altogether a new case or a defendant who has admitted a fact in the written statement, cannot be allowed to make out a new case by denying that fact.
7. In view of the above discussion, it can safely be held that the defendant-petitioners can be said to have raised a new plea but cannot be regarded to have taken altogether a new stand, as such, the order passed by the subordinate Court is not maintainable which is hereby set aside by accepting the revision petition. Consequently, the amendment stands allowed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.