M/S. Maroof Knitwear (Pvt.) Limited Through Chief, Executive & 8 Other vs
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' application seeking amendment of their application for leave to appear and defend the suit. The core legal question concerns the exercise of judicial discretion in allowing amendments to pleadings at later stages of proceedings. The Supreme Court held that while courts possess the discretionary power to permit amendments to pleadings at any stage, such amendments are not granted as a matter of absolute right in every case. Finding that the discretion exercised by the High Court did not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness, the Supreme Court upheld the impugned order and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that the allowance of amendments to pleadings remains a matter of judicial discretion which, if exercised reasonably without arbitrariness or illegality, will not be interfered with by the appellate court.
- Whether the court is bound to allow an amendment to pleadings whenever an application is moved?
- Can the exercise of discretion by a High Court in refusing an amendment to pleadings be interfered with if it does not suffer from illegality or arbitrariness?
- At what stages of proceedings can amendments to pleadings generally be considered by a court?
ORDER
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment/order, dated 25.4.2000 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore by which application moved by the petitioners seeking amendment in their application for leave to appear and defend the suit has been rejected.
2. Learned Judge in Chamber of the High Court on considering the circumstances came to the conclusion that it was not a fit case for allowing the application in his discretion.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that amendment in the pleadings according to established law could be allowed at any stage of the proceedings and even in proceedings in the final appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court, therefore, the amendment sought should have been allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. There is no cavil with the proposition that the Court in its discretion is vested with the power to allow amendment in its discretion in the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings but it does not bind the Court to allow the amendment in all the cases once an application is moved. The discretion exercised by the Court for not allowing the amendment in this case has not been shown to have suffered from any illegality 01 arbitrariness, therefore, we find no merits in this petition.
5. Needless to add that the petitioners shall be at liberty to use material available on the record of the suit in support of and to substantiate the grounds raised in the original application for grant of leave to appear and defend the suit.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.