LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others vs SULTAN AHMAD and another

' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--- Lahore Development Authority (L.D.A.) has been granted leave to appeal from the judgment dated 3-10-2006 of a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, whereby their writ petition was dismissed, most probably in limine.

2. Through a suit for declaration-cum-permanent injunction, Khalil-ur-Rehman plaintiff raised a dispute concerning Plot No,641/A, Gulshan-e-Ravi Scheme, Lahore. On one of the adjourned dates the L.D.A. Filed a written statement wherein one of the paragraphs of the plaint was simply denied without giving details of fact because the comments of some Director of the L.D.A. Were still awaited. The learned trial Court received such written statement.

3. Subsequently, on receipt of the comments aforesaid, L.D.A. Applied for the amendment of the written statement in order to supplement and reinforce, by narration of facts, the para. Concerned, which initially was left incomplete. The learned trial Court allowed the amendment vide order, dated 10-3-2006, which was set aside by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on 7-6-2006, disallowing the amendment of written statement. The learned High Court dismissed the writ petition of the L.D.A. And declined to interfere on the only ground that the disputed one was an interlocutory order.

4. After having heard the learned counsel on either side, we observe that the entire anomaly has been created by the learned trial Court itself, which happened to admit an incomplete written statement with implied understanding that it may subsequently be amended. The receipt of incomplete written statement was a clear irregularity, when, the defendant could have conveniently been granted time to file complete written statement. The opposite party could also have been compensated by imposition of costs. The learned trial Court rectified its own mistake by allowing the amended written statement.

5. Not realizing that anomaly was created by the trial Court itself and not realizing that an amendment, provided it does not change the nature and character of the suit, can be allowed at any stage, the learned Additional District judge disallowed the amendment. We have gone through the pleadings and observe that it never changed the character of litigation.

6. Allowing or refusing to allow amendment of pleadings is an act, which hits at the very root of the attack or defence of a party, as the case may be. The parties cannot lead evidence beyond their pleadings and hence it affects the production of evidence as well. Ultimately, the case of a party, refused amendment in genuine cases, is most likely to be seriously jeopardized. Thus, the question of amendment in hand was not of such an interlocutory nature, which could subsequently, be rectified at the time of final decision of case. While declining to interfere on such grounds, the learned High Court has fallen into material irregularity..

7. Consequently, the appeal is accepted, the impugned judgments, dated 3-10-2006 of the High Court and dated 7-6-2006 of the Revisional Court are set aside and that dated 10-3-2006 of the trial Court is restored, but on payment of Rs,10,000 as costs by the appellant, before the trial Court, failing which, the proposed amendment shall stand disallowed.