A declaratory suit was filed by the petitioner in the Civil Court in the year 1995. A joint written statement dated 14-5-1995. Was filed by the defendants/respondents. Paragraph 1 of the plaint was admitted as correct. Issues were then framed on 21-5-1995, whereafter the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff is stated to have been recorded. The case was set for the recording of evidence of the respondents/defendants when on 22-6-2000 an application was filed for seeking an amendment in the written statement. The said application was contested by the petitioner/plaintiff, which was eventually dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Shakargarh on 24- 6-2000. Against that order, a revision petition was filed by the respondents/defendants, which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Shakargarh on 6-12-2001 allowing the proposed amendment in paragraph 1 of the written statement on payment of Rs,1,000 as costs. It is this order, which has been assailed through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that not only the application brought for seeking amendment in the written statement was belated, the same could not be allowed by the revisional Court as the whole complex of the case would be totally changed. Reference is made by him to Qaid Juhar and another v. Mst. Hajiani Hajra Bai and another (PL.! 2002. Karachi 100), Mst.Imam Hussain v. Sher Ali Shah and others (1994 SCMR 2293), Atlantic Steamer's Supply Company v. m.v.
Titisee and others (PLD 1993 SC 88) and Muhammad Ikramullah Khan and 30 others v. Additional District Judge-III, Rahimyarkhan and 5 others (2001 YLR 2272). The learned counsel for the respondents to the contrary objects to the maintainability of the writ petition against the revisional order passed by the learned Additional District Judge and contends that successors of Muhammad Aslam who are minors,. Are not bound by the written statement filed by their predecessor. Reliance is placed upon Muhammad Zahoor and another v. Lal Muhammad and 2 others (i983 SCMR 322), Muhammad Samiullah Khan v. Additional District Judge, Sargodha (PLD 2002 Lahore 56), Muhammad Khan and 6 others v. Mst.Ghulam and 12 others (1991 SCMR 970), Noor Muhammad v. Sarwar Khan and 2 others (PLD 1985 SC 131) and Hassan Din v. Hafiz Abdus Salam and others (PLD 1991 SC 65). It is further contended that a liberal view is to be taken by the Courts in such matters.
3. The pleadings of the parties, copies whereof have been brought on record have been perused.
Indeed in the written statement filed originally by the respondents contents of paragraph 1 of the plaint had been admitted as. It was long thereafter when even the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff side had been recorded, that the respondents/defendants thought of seeking amendment in the written statement on the ground that was result of some oversight. Such an amendment certainly, which militated against the earlier stance, was vehemently opposed by the petitioners and was disallowed by the learned trial Court. The amendment does have the character of converting an admission into a denial, which obviously has the effect of changing the scope and complexion of the controversy. The effect would be not only the total reopening of the matter but would also require a de novo trial. Such an amendment was rightly declined by the Court. It is very hard to believe that for years the alleged oversight/inadvertence escaped the notice of the respondents/defendants. There is no denial that the Court exercises such power liberally but the facts and circumstances of a case and the effect of the sought for amendment cannot be ignored while exercising the power. There cannot be any hard and fast rule that the amendment sought for, always is to be allowed or that the writ petition cannot be entertained in any case whatsoever. The view taken by the learned Additional District Judge in his order dated 6- 12-2001 cannot be countenanced, which is wholly unwarranted and illegal.
As a result of the above this petition is accepted. Order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 6-12-2001 is declared as of no legal effect. No order as to costs.