' This civil revision was originally filed before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, assailing judgment/order dated 25-2-2003 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, allowing respondents Nos.1 and 2/plaintiff to amend their plaint and add therein a new paragraph 11, he simultaneously accepted their another application under Order 1, rule 10, C.P.C., as well, directing impleadment of respondents Nos.4 and 6, as defendants to the suit. The learned Additional District Judge vide his order dated 6-12-2003 found value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction to have been fixed at Rs,1,68,20,000 which was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction, ordered returned of revision petition for its presentation to the Court having pecuniary jurisdiction. The petitioners after receiving back, filed this revision petition before this Court, alongwith an application under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, seeking condonation of delay, caused due to prosecution of revision petition before the District Courts.
2. A short factual background of the case is that respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration, possession through partition and compensation for use and occupation of a joint property bearing No,4-C-3, Gulberg-III, Lahore, with a constructed area of about 5 Kanals, 17 Marlas and 34 Sq. Ft.
Against the petitioners and one Mrs. Tehmina Sarfraz, (respondent No,3). Pending this suit, respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed two applications, one under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. Seeking addition of one paragraph relating to cause of action, its accrual and jurisdiction of Court, in their plaint, duly detailed in paragraph, 3 of the application whereas the other application was filed under Order 1, rule 10, C.P.C. Seeking impleadment of Lahore Development Authority and Sub-Registrar, Model Town, Lahore, claiming them to be necessary and proper parties and were sought to be impleaded as defendants in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The learned Senior Civil Judge, through a consolidated order dated 25-2-2003 accepted both the applications of respondents Nos.1 and 2 and allowed them to amend their plaint, as prayed and directed impleadment of the above named parties to the suit, as defendants.
3. The petitioners aggrieved of the decision of the trial Court dated 25-2-2003, filed a revision petition before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, which was returned to them and have now presented it before this Court, for determination.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application for the proposed amendment has been filed at a belated stage and under law, it cannot be allowed. He further submits that suit originally was filed on 31-1-2003 whereas the amendment application was moved by respondents Nos.1 and 2 after about one year and there is no explanation as to why they did not move earlier. He also urged that through proposed amendments nature of the suit will be changed and such amendments cannot be allowed under law. Learned counsel for the petitioner also challenged impleadment of Lahore Development Authority and Sub-Registrar, Model Town, Lahore as parties to the suit on the ground that they are, neither necessary nor proper parties and their presence was not at all needed for the just decision of the suit. According to him, dispute between the parties is with regard to division of the property which was claimed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 as joint. It has also been argued on behalf of the petitioners that respondent No,1 and the plaintiffs, under the garb of permission to add paragraph 11 to the plaint, have introduced many unauthorized amendments in the plaint and as such, permission to amendment the plaint, may be recalled.
5. I have anxiously considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the record appended herewith. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 through their application under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. Prayed to add new paragraph 11 in their plaint which reads as under:-- "11. The suit property is situated Lahore, the cause of action has also accrued at Lahore, the parties to the suit are also residing at lahore. Therefore, this Honourable Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon this suit."
6. The proposed amendment is as explanatory in nature and was essential for determining of the question of jurisdiction of the Court which was not given in the original plaint. The proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit, cause of action on the basis of which the suit was filed or its complexion and thus, appears to have been rightly allowed by the trial Court. In similar situation, the Honourable Supreme Court held that amendments not affecting the cause of action or nature of the suit, should be liberally allowed and time factor should not hinder, in such exercise. It was further held that such amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings.
A reference in this behalf can be made to the cases of "Mst. Rahim Noor versus Mst. Salim Bibi and 2 others" PLD 1992 Supreme Court 30 and "Ch. Abdul Rashid versus Ch. Muhammad Tufail and others PLD 1992 Supreme Court 180. The suit in hand was at initial stages when the amendment application was filed. The suit was filed on 31-1-2000 and the amendment application was moved on 21-4-2000 and thus, it could not have been urged that the application was belated. Similarly, if respondents Nos.1 and 2 have introduced some unauthorized amendments, beyond the order allowing them to amend the plaint, in their amended plaint, those can simply be ignored and the petitioners in their amended written statement can take an objection to this effect which will be decided by the trial Court. Law on this subject is very clear that any material introduced in the amended plaint which falls beyond the scope of order allowing amendment, would be ignored at the time of final decision of the case or unauthorized amendments can be moved to be taken off the file.
7. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 being the plaintiffs, were masters of the suit and if they felt that impleadment of Lahore Development Authority and Sub-Registrar, Model Town, Lahore, were necessary or proper parties to the suit, their impleadment could not be objected, by the petitioners because by this impleadment, no right of the petitioners will be prejudiced. The property subject of suit, is prayed to be partitioned and is claimed to be 'Benami' in the name of defendant No,3, as such, the ultimately decree is to be incorporated in the record of the persons prayed to be impleaded. While determining nature of the property whether it is Benami or not, presence of newly-added defendants would render assistance to the Court, for a just and fair decision of the case. Learned trial Judge has observed that Lahore A Development Authority maintains record of properties, owners and occupiers of the properties within its area and the Sub-Registrar who keeps record of the properties in form of registered-deeds, are proper parties to the suit. The view taken appears to be correct. The petitioners being defendants in the suit, should not grumble about the impleadment in question.
8. The petitioners had filed this revision petition before the . Learned Additional District Judge, with a bona fide mistake and had been prosecuting the lis there, with due diligence, as such, their application under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, (Civil Miscellaneous No,1-C of 2003) for the reasons detailed therein, which are supported by an affidavit, the delay sought to be ignored, is condoned and this civil miscellaneous is allowed.
9. For what has been discussed above, it is clear that the trial Court has rightly allowed amendment of the plaint and impleadment of respondents Nos.4 and 6. The order impugned is in consonance with law and no illegality or irregularity has been committed while passing those orders, in absence of which, no interference in revision jurisdiction of this Court is permissible. This revision petition has no merits in it and is, accordingly dismissed in limine.