' Muhammad Afzal Sahi the applicant/respondent No.1, through the filing of the application in hand, under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151, C.P.C. Seeks permission to amend his written reply to theelection petition, so as to incorporate the proposed amendments mentioned in para. 3(a) and
(b) of the present application. The onlyground urged in support of the instant application is that "through inadvertence in written statement", objections regarding non-compliance of provisions of section 55 read with section 63 of Representation of People Act could not be taken. This application has been opposed by the election petitioner, through filing its reply.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this Tribunal has vast powers to allow amendment in the pleadings of the parties for ensuring fair and effective trial of the election petition. He has further submitted that the amendments should be allowed to the parties liberally.
In this regard, he has relied upon an unreported judgment, passed by this Tribunal in the case of Sh. Alla Uddin v. Shahid Qayyum E.P. No. 105 of 2002) and Syed Aklaque Hussain and another v.
Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore (1977 SCMR 284). Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent/election petitioner has submitted that section 62(3) of Representation of People Act, 1976 empowers the Tribunal to allow amendments in the petition only and not in the pleadings of the parties and that there is no provision in law, which authorizes this Tribunal to allow amendments in the written reply. He has further submitted that the applicant had already unconditionally withdrawn an identical application, therefore, successive application on the same subject-matter cannot be entertained. He has added that the proposed amendments, if allowed, would change the complexion of the written reply.
3. Learned counsel of the applicant is right in submitting that this Tribunal has ample powers to allow amendments to the parties in their pleadings and he has aptly relied upon the judgment of Sheikh Alla Uddin (ibid). This Tribunal, while dilating upon the controversy in hand, has held in the said case that this Tribunal has the powers to allow the parties to amend their pleadings, if it is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. It would be appropriate to reproduce para. 12 of the judgment in the case of Sh. Alla Uddin (Supra), which reads as follows:-- "In the above back drop, now the next question is as to whether under the present set of circumstances, sought for amendment in the election petition and annexes can be allowed to the petitioner, as prayed by him in his application or his election petition deserves to be dismissed as asked for by the respondent No.1 .Needless to mention that this Tribunal in view of section 62(3) read with section 64 of the Act, has ample powers to allow the amendment if in its opinion it is necessary for ensuring a fair and effective trial and for determining the real questions and issues.
Additionally, it has got all the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, thus, there is no cavil to the proposition that this Tribunal at any stage of the proceedings, can allow the parties to amend their pleadings, if it is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties."
(Underlining is mine).
' In the above perspective, I am still of the considered view that this Tribunal has the ample powers to allow the parties to amend their pleadings, if the same is for ensuring a fair and effective trial in the election petition and for determining the real questions at issue. In view whereof, the objection of the learned counsel for the election petition, in this regard, has no substance, thus repealed.
4. In the above back ground, now the pivotal questions, which arise for determination is as to whether sought for amendment in the written reply can be allow to the applicant, as prayed for by him in the application under discussion, and as to whether the applicant has made out a case for the amendment of the written reply within the para meters of law. Only ground agitated in the present application, as is evident from para. 2 of the application for permission to amend the written reply, as canvassed by the learned counsel, is that, "through inadvertence", the said objection could not be taken in the written reply. For ready reference, para. 2 of the present application is reproduced below:-- "That through inadvertence in the written statement objection regarding the non compliance of provisions of section 55 read with section 63 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1976 has not been taken although, respondent No.1 in his application dated 31-3-2003 filed under section 63 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1976, the objections regarding non verification of the election petition and violation of provisions of section 55 have been detailed. However the said petition under section 63 of the Act has been withdrawn with permission to file a fresh one ' It appears from the bare reading of para.2 of the application, as reproduced above, that according to the own showings of the applicant, he could not take the said objections, as incorporated in para. 3(a) and (b) of the application, in his reply to the election petition due to "inadvertence." Now the question arises as to whether "in advetience" can be treated to be a valid and legal ground for allowing the amendments in the pleadings within the para meter set up under the law. The word "inadvertence" has neither been defined in Code of Civil Procedure nor in the Representation of People Act, 1976, thus, for the meaning of the said word, in view of the dictum laid down in Ghulam Murtaza v. Muhammad Ilyas and 3 others (PLD 1980 Lahore 495), wherein it has been held that if the words are not defined in statutes, Dictionary can be referred to for determining meaning of such words, one has to advert to the dictionary meaning of the said word.
According to Black's Law Dictionary, the word "inadvertence" means "lack of intention, want of care, carelessness. Failure to pay careful and prudent attention." K.G. Aiyer's Judicial Dictionary, defined word "inadvertence" as "want of care or circumspection and a fact in attention". Webster Dictionary Encyclopedia Edition Vol. I gives the meaning of "inadvertence" as "inattentive or un-intentional."
' It flows from the above that the meaning of the word"inadvertence" is lack of care, inattentive and the carelessness.
' According to the applicant, he was careless or in-attentive or he showed lack of intention, by not taking the said objection in his reply. To my mind, it cannot be held as "valid and sufficient" ground to allow sought" for amendments.
5. Another factor, which has further dissuaded me to allow this application, is that upon the perusal of provisions of Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C. I find that one of inseparable components for exercise of powers under Order VI Rule 17 is that all such amendments shall be made, as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Additionally, section 62 of the Representation of Peoples .Act, 1976 provides, that a Tribunal may allow amendments, if in its opinion, it is necessary for ensuring the fair and effective trial and for determining the real questions at issue. The learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to show that how the proposed amendments are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties or that real question for determination at issues.
Interestingly, the said ingredients have neither been pleaded in the application nor urged by the learned counsel. To my mind, if the proposed amendments are allowed, it would change the complexion of the written reply and would amount to setting up altogether different cause of action. It has although been held in Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others v. Sarsa Khan and others (PLD 1985 SC 345), that liberal view should be taken for allowing the amendments in the plaint and other pleadings yet the principle laid therein that the proposed amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy and that the amendment shall be disallowed if the same changes the cause of action or complexion of the original lis. Even the judgment of Mst. Gulam Bibi (ibid) does not help the applicant.
' Now coming to the case of Syed Akhlaque Hussain (Supra), relied upon by the learned counsel, suffice it to say that even in the said judgment, it has also been held that the amendments in the pleadings should be allowed except those amendments which amount to setting up altogether a different cause of action. In the present circumstances, even the said judgment is of no avail to the applicant.
6. In view of the what has been said above, the application in hand, is devoid of merits, hence dismissed.
MAIN CASE ' Main case to be taken up on 12-4-2004 for framing of issues.