The petitioner filed a suit on 17, October 1987 and moved an application for amendment on 8th of April, 1996. The application was dismissed and the revision taken to the High Court met similar fate.
The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal.
2. On 31st of January, 1987 a sale-deed was executed by respondents Muhammad Suleman and Muhammad Akram in favour of respondent Muhammad Shafi Butt whereby a piece of land measuring 11 Marlas in Survey numbers 148 and 1480/32 was transferred. This sale-deed was challenged by the petitioner Hashmatullah by promptly filing a suit in which he averred that the land transferred to Muhammad Shafi Butt was not in possession of Muhammad Suleman and Muhammad Akram and they could not legally transfer the land in dispute to anybody. It was also averred in the plaint that the petitioner had become owner of the land in dispute due to his adverse possession spreading over a period of more than fifty years. Through the amendment application the petitioner seeks to add a new paragraph of which the substance is that the sale-- deed of 31st of January, 1987 was in respect of land under Survey number 24 while attempt was being made to interfere in land under Survey number 1480/32 which is the ancestral property of the petitioner. It is further explained in the paragraph sought to be added that land under Survey number 1480/32 mentioned earlier, which measured 10 Kanals, had devolved on him from his father Barkatullah by way of inheritance. The land had been purchased by his father from his relatives Yar Ali and Mst. Sawri.
3. It may be seen that the paragraph sought to be added to the plaint relates to land which is not in dispute and is claimed to be ancestral land of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia has been unable to explain as to how the contents ofth the proposed paragraph relating to land under Survey number 148/32, which is not in dispute, is relevant to the dispute which falls for determination in the suit. I agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that amendment can be allowed at any time but amendment can be allowed only if it is necessary for determining the real question in controversy or if it is otherwise necessary in the ends of justice. In my view there is no such situation in the present case.
The High Court and the trial Court have rightly refused permission to amend the plaint. Therefore, there is no scope for interference of this Court.
The leave petition is, therefore, rejected.