' This civil revision is directed against the order, dated 3-12-1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore whereby the petitioner's application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C., seeking to amend the plaint was dismissed.
2. The relevant facts are that father of the petitioner being the owner in possession of the land situate in Mauza Pathanwala, Tehsil Lahore Cantt. District Lahore gifted the entire piece of land in favour of his sons i,e, petitioner and three others and his daughter in equal shares vide Mutation No,34 attested on 21-3-1987, thus, the petitioner claims to be the owner of 1/5th share in the joint Khata. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner arid others subsequently filed a suit thereby claiming that he had not gifted the land in favour of the petitioner. The said suit was ultimately dismissed on 3-4-1990. Din Muhammad and others, brothers of the petitioner filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree before the learned District Judge, Lahore who vide order, dated 9-4-1990 admitted the same and issued status quo order. It is submitted that the owners of land in village Pathanwali are outsiders and . Have no permanent or temporary residence in the village, therefore, as per force of circumstance, they have to stay either with the respondents or Rahmat Ali S/o Hussain Khan, tenant of the petitioner. The petitioner had been staying with the respondent No,1 who always assisted him in pursuing the suit, therefore, the petitioner had developed confidence in the said respondent No,1. It is added that the respondent No,1 persuaded the petitioner to execute a special power of attorney so that he, may pursue the suit filed against him. The petitioner readily agreed to the suggestion and accordingly thumb-marked certain papers. Similarly, after the judgment and decree, dated 3-4-1990, the respondent No,1 asked the petitioner to execute a fresh power of attorney, whereupon the petitioner (gain thumb-marked certain papers. It was only because of dispute between the respondent No,1 and tenant of the land Rahmat Ali that it transpired that respondent No,1 has betrayed the confidence of the petitioner and has infect concocted and fraudulently prepared a sale-deed in regard to his 1/5th share which has been got registered with the Sub-Registrar, Lahore Cantt. And that on obtaining certified copy of the sale-deed it further transpired that it based on an earlier agreement to sell whereupon the copy of the said agreement to sell was also obtained. It was then alleged that the sale-deed has been prepared by fraud and misrepresentation and is not binding on the rights of the petitioner.
The suit was filed thereby challenging the document aforementioned with the following prayer:--- ' Under the circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that the agreement to sell registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Lahore Cantt. As document No,11199 additional Behi No,1 Jild No,3172 purporting to be from the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant No,1 and in furtherance thereof the sale-deed registered on 11-4-1990 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Lahore Cantt. As document No,4123 additional Behi No,1 purporting to be sale-deed from the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants Nos.2 and 3 for the sale of land out of Khewet No,4, measuring 19 Kanals, 8 Marlas as 1/5th share out of joint Khata situated in Mauza Pathanwala Lahore Cantt. May kindly be declared having been got executed and registered by fraud and misrepresentation and the documents (agreements to sell and sale-deed) may kindly be adjudged void and be ordered to be delivered up and cancelled.
' The plaintiff may kindly be declared owner in possession of the land in dispute, and that the defendants have no right, title and interest in the land in dispute.
' It is further prayed that the defendants may kindly be permanently restrained from denying the title and ownership of the plaintiff and interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. The defendants may also be restrained permanently, from claiming ownership on the basis of above referred bogus, fraudulent documents (sale-deed and agreement to sell) and alienating the land or in cumbering it in any manner whatsoever or incorporating the sale-deed in the Revenue Record by way of mutation.
' The suit be decreed with costs. Any other relief to which the plaintiff in the circumstances of the case, be found entitled may also be granted.
' The said suit was contested on multifarious grounds wherein it was maintained that the land in dispute had been validly sold to respondents Nos.2 and 3 for a lawful consideration with specific reference that possession of the land was also delivered to the respondents Nos.2 and 3.
3. It was during the pendency of the suit that an application under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C., was filed by the petitioner seeking to amend the plaint thereby adding prayer of possession in the prayer clause of the suit. This application proceeded on the ground that the tenant of the land in dispute has been forcibly ejected by the respondents during the pendency of the suit, hence the amendment. The application was resisted by the respondents who having reiterated their stand as incorporated in the written statement maintained that the respondents had obtained the possession of the suit land at the time of agreement of sale, therefore, it is incorrect to suggest that the tenant of the land was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. It was specifically pleaded that written statement in the case was filed about 5 years back and that it carried the objection that the suit is not maintainable as prayer of possession has not been made therein.
4. Learned Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the above said application primarily on the ground that the petitioner having claimed in the main suit that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute could not be allowed to raise a contradictory plea thereby seeking possession of the land in dispute.
5. At the hearing learned counsel for the respondents very vehemently argued that the petitioner having claimed himself to be owner in possession of the land in dispute has now asked for decree for possession of the same land and at the same time had retained the prayer' of his being in possession of the land in dispute. The contradictory stand is quite anomalous and against the principle of pleadings. Confronted therewith, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that he may be allowed to file fresh application thereby submitting the proposed amendment. The permission was accorded, resultantly, the petitioner filed C.M. No, l-C of 1996 thereby seeking permission to add para.7-A in the plaint as follows:--- "That during pendency of the instant suit after rejection of application for the grant of temporary injunction, the defendants forcibly ejected plaintiff's tenant Rehmat and occupied the land in dispute." and sought to recast the prayer clause of the plaint as under:- "That the petitioner respectfully prays for the permission to re-cast prayer clause in the plaint as under:-- ' Under the circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that the agreement to sell registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Lahore Cantt. As document No,11199 additional Behi No,1 Jild No,3172 purporting to be from the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant No,1 and in furtherance thereof the sale-deed registered on 11-4-1990 in the office of Sub-Registrar Lahore Cantt. As document No,4123 additional Behi No,1 purporting to be sale-deed from the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants Nos.2 and 3 for the sale of land out of Khewet No,4, measuring 19 Kanals, 8 Marlas as 1/5th share out of joint Khata situated in Mauza Pathanwal a Lahore Cantt. May kindly be declared having been got executed and registered by fraud and misrepresentation and the documents (agreement to sell and sale-deed) may kindly be adjudged void and be ordered to be delivered up and cancelled. The plaintiff may kindly be declared owner of the land in dispute, and that the defendants have no right, title and interest in the land in dispute and, thus, decree for possession of the land in dispute may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
' It is further prayed that the defendants may kindly be permanently restrained from denying the title and ownership of the plaintiff. The defendants may also be restrained permanently, from claiming ownership on the basis of above referred bogus, fraudulent documents (sale-deed and agreement to sell) and alienating the land or in cumbering it in any manner whatsoever or incur porating the sale-deed in the Revenue Record by way of mutation."
' It was again submitted that the proposed amendment shall not change the nature and character of the suit nor cause of action and since the parties, the property and the subject-matter of the suit remains the same, therefore, the amendment sought for be allowed to be incorporated in the plaint. The application was resisted by the respondents mainly on the ground that the same has not been filed within the time granted by the Court and that application of the kind should have been filed before the learned Trial Court. It was also submitted that the application of the nature could not be filed under section 151, C.P.C., The stand point of the respondents as to taking over the possession was reiterated and it was denied that the petitioner is entitled to the possession of the land.
6. As far the three-fold objection of the learned counsel for the respondents that the application was not filed within the time granted by the Court and that such an application should have been filed before the learned Trial Court and that the application of the kind could not be maintained under section 151, C.P.C., suffice it to say that it is only .The time fixed by the statuts which cannot be enlarged by the Court while it is well-accepted that time granted by the Court can also be enlarged by the Court. Again the time fixed in regulatory orders by the Court during the pendency of the proceedings can also be impliedly enlarged. As far the objection that the application disclosing proposed amendment should have been filed before the learned Trial Court, it would be noted that the revisional jurisdiction is normally exercised to correct errors of the subordinate Courts as also to see that no illegality is committed by the Court subordinate to the High Court. The exercise of jurisdiction is supervisory in its nature and A meant for correcting errors. The jurisdiction can also be exercised suo motu and once an illegality is pointed out to the Court, it is bound to exercise its jurisdiction. It was on the objection of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is seeking to introduce a contradictory plea inasmuch as he having retained the pleadings that the petitioner is owner in possession of the land in dispute is simultaneously asking for possession of the same land by way of an amendment that the petitioner was asked to disclose the proposed amendment so that pleadings may be clarified. It was in compliance of the said order that the petitioner filed the application containing the proposed amendment whereby the prayer clause was re-carted. This application has in fact clarified the amendment sought to be incorporated in the plaint and I see no earthly reason as to why this could not be done in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction for this Court which, as mentioned earlier, is supervisory in nature and is primarily meant to correct the errors of the subordinate Courts. The third objection is clearly devoid of any force for it is too well-known that misquotation of law does not dis-entitle the petitioner from the relief which flows out of the contents of the application. If any authority is needed, reference may be made to "Malik Bakhsh v. Shamim Qaiser" (PLD 1960 Lahore 770).
' Coming to the amendment as contained in C.M. No,1/C of 19%, it would be seen that the application proceeds on the ground that the tenant of the land had been forcibly ejected during the pendency of the suit, therefore, it has become imperative for the petitioner to seek relief of possession. Originally the petitioner had sought declaration that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute with the averments that he is in possession through the tenant, namely, Rehmat Ali.
The question as to whether the possession was taken over from the tenant before the filing of the suit and as such the petitioner could not maintain a suit for declaration being germane to main controversy shall be determined at the trial. For the present it is enough that the petitioner seeks to substitute his prayer from declaration to possession which could not be denied on the ground of delay simplicitor and since the nature of the suit would also be not changed because the relief of possession being ancillary to the decree of cancellation of sale-deed would be granted as a consequence of the primary relief of cancellation and that being so the cause of action will also remain the same. Again, it is well-accepted that amendments are allowed liberally. I am fortified in this view by the judgment in the case of Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others v. Sarsa Khan and others (PLD 1985 SC 345). It is axiomatic that all amendments are allowed to be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The proposed amendment if tested on the touchstone afore referred would make it abundantly clear that the real question in controversy between the parties shall not be trial but also be determined by the Court and this being the ultimate object of the law of amendment, the proposed amendment could not be disallowed. The reliance of learned counsel for the respondent on the case of "Shahsawar v. Syed Jamal-ul-Hassan etc." (1981 SCMR 730) is absolutely misplaced inasmuch as in the cited case the plaintiffs having admitted Mst. Jannat Bibi to be the daughter of Shahsawar deceased wanted to retract from the admission in the pleadings on the ground that they have come to know of this fact after good about seven years. The plea was not allowed to be incorporated in the plaint by way of an amendment on the ground that the same was not bona fide and that the plaintiff having lost the ease could not be allowed to succeed on such a design.
Another factor which prevailed with the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan was to the effect that none of the witnesses produced by the plaintiff in the said case said anything about the parentage of Mst. Jannat Bibi and for the obvious reason that she had been admitted to be the daughter of Shahsawar. Manifestly the ratio of the said case could not be relied in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
7. In the circumstances, the 'learned Trial Court did proceed with material irregularity amounting to illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction disallowing the amendment and by not following the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mst. Ghulam Fatima and others noted supra. The only other objection that the proposed amendment was not disclosed in the lower Court has also been squarely met inasmuch as the proposed amendment has been disclosed before this >Court.
8. In result, this petition is allowed and the order. Dated 3-12-1995 is set aside. The amendment as proposed in C.M. No, 1/C of 1996 is allowed to be incorporated in the plaint in the suit filed by the petitioner. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.