' With the concurrence of the counsel for the parties it is being treated as an admitted case.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner had filed a suit against respondents Nos.1 to 5 for declaration that he is owner and in possession of the suit-land and entries in the Revenue Record in respect of the same, are incorrect against facts and void. By way of consequential relief it was prayed that the respondents be perpetually restrained from interfering with his possession over the said land and be also restrained from alienating the same on the basis of the incorrect entries in the Revenue Record.
' During the pendency of the suit a compromise was effected on the basis whereof the suit was decided whereby petitioner had relinquished his right as well as possession in respect of the suit- land in favour of respondents Nos.1 to 3 in lieu of a house and cash of Rs,75,000 given by the said respondents.
' The said respondents later on disposed of the suit-land in favour of respondents Nos.4 and 5.
' Respondent No,3 challenged the aforesaid compromise order in appeal which was accepted by District Judge, Rajanpur and the case was remanded vide judgment dated 4-1-1992.
' Writ petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint alleging therein that they had parted with the possession of the suit-land under compromise which was allowed by the Court and since the same has been set aside in appeal and the case has been remanded, they may be allowed to seek the relief of possession of the suit-land and be also allowed to assail the transfer of the said land in favour of respondents, by way of amendment.
' The aforesaid application was accepted by the trial Court on 25-9-1999, however, on revision by respondents Nos.4 and 5, the aforesaid order of the trial Court was set aside by District Judge, Rajanpur vide judgment dated 21-12-1999.
' In this Constitutional petition the aforesaid order of the District Judge is called in question on the ground that a well-reasoned order of the trial Court. Was reversed in revision on the solitary ground that amendment was allowed at belated stage when no limitation is prescribed for seeking amendment which can be allowed even at the appellate stage.
' Writ petition is opposed by learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that Constitutional petition against a revisional order passed in civil litigation is not maintainable. Reliance is placed on Mst. Ziadat v. Shahadat and others 1989 SCM R 1392; Noor Muhammad v. Sarwar Khan and 2 others 1985 SCM R 131 and Dilshad v. ADJ, Multan and others 1986 SCM R 1396.
' Arguments heard. Writ petition, its annexures and the authorities referred by the learned counsel for the respondents perused.
' It cannot be laid down as a rule that in no case the Constitutional petition can be maintained against the revisional order. Reference Muhammad Zahoor and another v. Lal Muhammad and 2 others 1988 SCM R 322. In PLD 2001 SC 149, it has been observed that High Court in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction can interfere where order passed by subordinate Court suffers from jurisdictional defect or violates any provision of law or is in excess or abuse of jurisdiction.
' Order of the trial Court allowing amendment in the plaint was set aside in revisional jurisdiction on the solitary ground that amendment was allowed at a belated stage. It was hardly a reasonable or cogent ground for it is now well-settled that where an amendment is necessary to resolve the real controversy it may be allowed at any stage including the appellate stage.
13. Jurisdiction under rule 17, Order 6, C.P.C. Is discretionary. An improper exercise of discretion may be corrected in appeal if it is contrary to the legal principles governing the exercise of such discretion but it is not open to interference in revision.
14. Interference of the learned Appellate Court by way of revision with decision regarding a matter which was within the discretion of the subordinate Court was therefore, not warranted. The impugned order is accordingly declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. Writ .