' The relevant facts for the decision of this revision petition are that the petitioner instituted a suit for possession in exercise of superior right of pre-emption. The respondent resisted the same on legal as well as factual plans. The Trial Court accordingly framed issues. Thereafter, the respondent moved an application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. For amendment of the written statement. The application was contested by the petitioner. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments allowed the petition vide order dated 9-12-1999, which has been assailed through this revision petition.
2. It is argued that in the pre-emption matter the amendment should not be allowed as a matter of routine specially when it amounted to change of cause of action. The learned counsel in this behalf has referred to Muhammad Iqbal v. Muhammad Ramzan and others PLD 1987 Azad J&K 170, Ijaz Mahmood and others v. Manzoor Hussain and others 1988 SCM R 34 and m.v. Kaptan Yousuf Kalkavan v. Semco Salvage PTD Ltd. 1992 CLC 143.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the record as well as precedent cases. The respondent has prayed in the application that although he has taken the preliminary objections Nos.3 and 6 as to limitation and estoppel yet not explained the legal objections, therefore, he sought addition of explanation in preliminary objections Nos.3 and 6.
Similarly, he wanted to add in paras.2 and 3. It is clear from the application that the petitioner is not taking even a fresh ground of defence. He in his own anxiety wanted to explain certain facts already pleaded. The learned trial Court, therefore, correctly held as under:-- "4..The petitioner/defendant wants to explain these issues through the proposed amendments which are necessary to resolve the matter in controversy between the parties. The nature of the suit will not be changed by the proposed amendments which can be made at any stage. The respondent/plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the proposed amendment as he will have the right of rebuttal"
4. Now coming to the cases relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner:
(i) Muhammad Iqbal (supra): ' This is not relevant because in this case the plaintiff sought the amendment and the purpose was to include property left out at the time of institution;
(ii) m.v. Kaptan Yousuf Kalkavan (supra): ' The judgment of this case, if studied closely, would go against the petitioner. The learned Judge has tabulated the rules governing the acceptance or rejection of application for amendment; and
(iii) Ijaz Mahmood and others (supra): ' In this case petitioner/defendant moved an application for amendment of the written statement in order to take up plea of adverse possession when the evidence of the parties had been recorded and case was fixed for arguments. No explanation was offered for not taking the said plea at the initial stage of the trial. This judgment is again not relevant because the present suit is still at initial stages and no new plea has been taken by the defendant.
The amendment has been allowed properly and in a way defendant has done a favour to the petitioner by fore-warning him of his detailed plea in the defence.
5. The upshot of this discussion is that there is no merit in the revision petition. The same is dismissed in limine.