1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---This judgment will govern disposal of Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,774 of 1994 and Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,99 of 1995. These two civil petitions have arisen in the following circumstances.
2. ' Mrs. Sehyr Saigol wife of M. Naseem Saigol, Mrs. Amber Saigol wife of M. Azam Saigol and Mst. Razia Begum wife of M. Yousuf Saigol jointly instituted a suit for declaration and other consequential reliefs before Senior Civil Judge, Lahore on 19-11-1989 impleading Mian Aftab Saigol and Mian Yousuf Saigol as defendant. A consent decree in the suit was passed on 23-11-1989. The petitioner moved an application for setting aside the consent decree in the case under section 12(2), C.P.C., which was allowed by order, dated 30-6-1992. As a result of recalling of the consent decree the suit became pending and during its pendency the petitioner filed two applications one for framing of additional issues and the other for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. It appears that the first application was not pressed while the second application was rejected by the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore by order, dated 21-4-1994. The order of Senior Civil Judge rejecting the application was challenged in Civil Revision Application (C.R.A.) No,1771 of 1994 which was disposed of by a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court on 7-5-1994 with these observations:--- "4. This petition is accordingly disposed of with the clarification that the impugned order shall not be construed to be a bar in the way of the petitioner in agitating the matter either before the trial Court or the appellate Court."
3. Civil Petition No,774-L of 1994 has been filed to call in question the above order of a learned Judge in Chambers.
4. ' It appears that after dismissal of the Civil Revision Application No,1771 of 1994 as aforesaid, Civil Miscellaneous No,640-L of 1994 was filed by the respondents with the prayer that the observations made by the learned Judge in Chambers in his order, dated 7-5-1994 while disposing of Civil Revision Application No,1771 of 1994, amounted to granting the relief prayed for in the revision without hearing the respondents. The learned Judge in Chambers after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents and the appellants clarified his earlier order, dated 7-5-1994 stating that the observations made in his order, dated 7-5-1994 only meant that the order passed by him would not be construed as a bar in the way of petitioner in agitating the matter either before the trial Court or before the appellate Court and these observations were also subject to the condition that if such a course is available to the petitioner under the law. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the respondents at that time before the learned Judge that an application for amendment of written statement has been filed before the trial Court by the petitioner and it is apprehended that in view of the observations made by the learned Judge in his order, dated 7-5- 1994 the trial Court may allow the amendment considering the observations in the order, dated 7- 5-1994 as a direction to allow the amendments. This apprehension of the learned counsel for the respondents was repelled by the learned Judge in Chambers as follows:--- "6. I am afraid, how the learned counsel for revision petitioner is under some misapprehension. The application for amendment has to be decided on its own merits and nothing contained in this order or the earlier order passed by this Court can affect its merits."
5. ' Civil Miscellaneous No,640-C of 1994 and Civil Miscellaneous No,639-C of 1994 were accordingly disposed of by the learned Judge in Chambers by his order, dated 22-4-1994 which gave rise to the Civil Petition No,99 of 1995.
6. ' At the hearing of these petitions, it was brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the parties that in the meantime Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, rejected the application moved by the petitioner seeking permission to amend his written statement by order, dated 23-1-1995. The learned counsel for the petitioner took us through the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, on 23-1-1995 on the application of the petitioner filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C., and contended that this order is directly in conflict with the order of the High Court, dated 7-5-1994 passed in Civil Revision Application No,1771 of 1994. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the observations made by the learned Judge in Chambers in his order, dated 7-5-1994, Senior Civil Judge could not dismiss the application, as not maintainable. The learned counsel also contended that on account of the pendency of above noted two petitions for leave to appeal before this Court, the petitioner could not challenge the order, dated 23-1-1995 passed by the Senior Civil Judge.
7. ' We would refrain from making any observation with regard to the validity of the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge on 23-1-1995 as the petitioner may challenge the same in accordance with the law.
8. We have considered the contention of petitioner with regard to the legality of the two orders impugned in the above petitions and are of the view that the orders passed by the learned Judge in chambers do not suffer from any infirmity. The learned Judge in Chambers rightly observed in his order, dated 7-5-1994 that the issue raised by the petitioner by way of application under Order VII, Rule 11', C.P.C., should have been appropriately raised in the pleadings so that a specific issue could be framed in the suit and decided in accordance with the law. The petitioner, therefore, filed the application for amendment of his written statement in view of observations made by the learned Judge in Chambers in the impugned judgment, dated 7-5-1994. Similarly, the learned Judge in chambers was also right in observing in his subsequent order, dated 22-12-1994 passed on Civil Miscellaneous 640-C of 1994 that the apprehension expressed by the respondents that the observations made by the learned Judge in Chambers in his order, dated 7-5-1994 amounted to a direction to the trial Court to allow amendment application was wholly unfounded and that the application for amendment moved by the petitioner shall be dealt with in accordance with the law.
9. We, therefore, find no justification for interfering with the orders, dated 7-5-1994 and 22-12-1994 impugned in the above petitions. However, in view of the development that during pendency of these petitions for leave to appeal, the amendment application moved by the petitioner before the Trial Court for amending his written statement in the suit has been dismissed by the Trial Court, the only course available to the petitioner is to seek appropriate remedy against the order of Senior Civil Judge, dated 23-1-1995 before the competent forum. With these observations, above petitions are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.