KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, C.J.- This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the District Judge, Rawalakote on April 23, 1999 whereby application moved by the petitioners, seeking amendment in the written statement, was rejected.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are that a suit for the recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 14,16,195-, was filed by the plaintiff-respondent in the Court of District Judge, Rawalakote, on 2.5.1997. In this suit after availing few adjournments, on request, the written statement on behalf of defendants-petitioners Nos. 2 to 5, was filed on September 18, 1997 whereas on behalf of defendant- petitioner No. 6, the same was filed on November, 22, 1997. Though the same Counsel who had filed written statement on behalf of defendants- petitioners Nos. 2 to 5, an application was moved by the petitioner No. 4, on February 7, 1998 in which it was requested that the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants-petitioners be rejected on the ground that the same had been filed without instruction of the department. According to the defendants- petitioners, some un-authorised person met their Standing Counsel and presented false state of facts to him for filing the written statement. This application was supported by an affidavit.
3. The plaintiff-respondent filed his objections on February 26, 1998 in which he had categorically stated that the written statement was filed on behalf of the P.W.D, by Sardar Muhammad Haleem Khan, its Standing Counsel who previously had taken dates from the Court for this purpose. He had also verified the contents of the written statement.
4. On January 9, 1999, another application seeking amendment, was filed by the standing Counsel of the defendant-petitioners before the Court in which it was specifically pleaded that he was recently appointed standing counsel by the department. Some un-authorised person obtained his signatures on a typed written statement for filing the same before the Court. Thus a fraud has been practised, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent should not be allowed to take advantage of his fraud.
On this application, objections were invited from the plaintiff-respondent which were accordingly tiled by him on February 27, 1999 in which it was specifically contended that the written statement was filed in routine by the Counsel who was representing the defendants-petitioners, after availing few opportunities, on request, for this purpose, It was, therefore, contended that as the written statement has been filed by the defendants-petitioners in accordance with law, the amendment sought by them shall change the entire nature of the case and would deprive the plaintiff- respondent from his accrued right. It was requested that the application seeking amendment in the written statement be rejected.
5. The Trial Court while up holding the objections filed by the plaintiff-respondent, rejected the application seeking amendment by the defendants-petitioners. Hence the present revision petition.
6. The learned Additional Advocate General argued that the written statement is the result of a fraud. According to him, some person on behalf of the defendants-petitioners prepared a typed written statement in which he admitted the claim of the plaintiff and after obtaining signatures of the newly appointed Counsel of the defendant-petitioner, filed the same before the Court. He pleaded that the written statement which is the result of a fraud, may be allowed to be amended, as requested through application. He further argued that the signatures on the type written statement filed on behalf of the defendant-petitioner No. 6, were obtained from Standing Counsel, Sardar Muhammad Zareen Khan, Advocate.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondent while supporting order under challenge, argued that the amendment sought to be effected is not necessary for the purpose of determining the real controversy between the parties. The defendants- petitioners through their amended written statement, wants to take inconsistent stand then the one taken by them in their previous written statements, therefore, the amendment would prejudiced his client. The learned Counsel for the respondent requested that by dismissing the revision petition filed by the defendant-petitioner, order under challenge be kept intact.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
9. On the filing of the suit by the plaintiff-respondent, notices were issued to the defendants- petitioners for appearance before the Trial Court. On the instructions of the defendants-petitioners, Sardar Muhammad Haleem Khan and Sardar Muhammad Zareen Khan, appeared in the Court and obtained various adjournments for filing written statements on their behalf. They filed two written statements on two different dates, before the Trial Court in which they admitted certain facts on behalf of the defendants- petitioners. The defendants-petitioners now want to file amended written statement which would be totally inconsistent then the previously filed written statements. The principles regarding amendment of plaint are equally applicable to the amendment of written statement. The power to grant amendment is discretionary with the Court which is to be exercised in accordance with judicial principles. The rules of procedure contained in the Civil Procedure Code including one for amendment of pleading, are meant for achieving ends of justice.
10. In the present case, even though I am conscious of the fact that amendment in the written statement on certain questions of facts would be inconsistent with the stand taken by the petitioners in their earlier filed written statements. However, their case is that the written ^statements were managed by the plaintiff-respondent on whose instance some person by disclosing himself to be the representative of the department obtained signature from their standing Counsels on two prepared written statement and filed the same on their behalf on September 18, 1997 and November 22 1997, before the Trial Court.
11. It is settled proposition of law that fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings, therefore, no one should be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud. In my view, the matter of amendment in this case, must be resolved in the light of evidence of the parties. If in evidence, it is proved that actually some fraud was committed in this case, then application for amendment should be allowed otherwise the defendants- petitioners cannot be allowed to set-up a case totally inconsistent with the original one and deprive the plaintiff-respondent from his accrued benefit. Order of the Trial Court whereby amendment application has Been refused is, therefore, set aside.
12. The Trial Court in the light of the above observation, shall pass fresh order on the amendment application in the light of the evidence of the parties. This revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.