SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.---This appeal has been directed against the order of the High Court dated 9-10-1996, whereby the respondent No,1 was allowed amendment in his writ petition.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the land measuring one Marla situate in Muhallah Shah Sultan, Muzaffarabad, was allotted to respondent No,1; however, his allotment was cancelled on 28- 4-1993 and the aforesaid land was allotted by the Development Authority to Abdul Qadir son of Khalil Joo, appellant, herein. A review petition was filed by respondent No,1 against the cancellation of his allotment on 30-5-1993. The said review petition was dismissed by the concerned authority on 11-9-1993 when the writ petition had already been filed by respondent No,1 in the High Court against the order of the cancellation of his allotment. Consequently, an objection was raised that as the review petition filed by respondent No,1, herein, was sub judice before the competent authority, the writ petition was not competent. Thus, an application was filed by respondent No,1 on 13-1-1994 seeking amendment in his writ petition so as to challenge the order passed on his review petition. The appellant, herein, contested the amendment but the High Court allowed the amendment observing that the same does not change the character of the writ petition or the relief claimed.
3. Mr. Aslam Habib, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that respondent No,1 originally did not state in his memo. of writ petition that he had already filed a review petition which was sub judice; only when an objection was raised, in that regard by the appellant herein, he came up with the amendment application. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, respondent No,1 did not come with clean hands and was not entitled to seek the redressal of his grievance by invoking writ jurisdiction. He has further maintained that if the amendment is allowed that would be violative of principle of laches which is an important factor in case of the writ jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a case reported as Raja Feroze Khan v. Asghar Khan (1992 SCR 363), wherein the amendment application made after nine years was disallowed on the ground that the concerned party was negligent in seeking the amendment.
4. Sardar Rafique Mahmood Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for respondent No,1, has controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and has argued that the amendment can be made at any stage. He has further submitted that in the instant case there is no delay because the application was made within three months of the order sought to be assailed by way of making the amendment. The learned counsel has further submitted that the order on the review petition was passed in the absence of the petitioner-respondent and, thus, it cannot be said that he was guilty of any delay which would disentitle him from seeking the amendment.
5. We have given our due consideration to the points raised at the bar. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the petitioner-respondent should not have been allowed amendment of his writ petition because initially he suppressed the factum of filing of the review petition is concerned, that is not tenable because we do not see any reason that the petitioner- respondent was to gain anything by suppressing the factum of filing of review petition before the relevant authority. Even the learned counsel for the appellant has conceded that the petitioner- respondent could challenge the order of the cancellation of his allotment without filing any review petition because normally it is not regarded an adequate remedy so as to create a bar to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
6. The argument that the amendment was sought at a belated stage is also without any force because in the circumstances of the instant case, it cannot be said that there was any delay in seeking amendment which would disentitle the respondent from amending his writ petition.
In the light of what has been stated above finding no force in this appeal, it is hereby dismissed with costs.