MUBASHAR AHMED vs Mst. ZAHIDA PARVEEN and others
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed his writ petition challenging the trial court's refusal to allow an amendment to his written statement. The original suit for specific performance was instituted in 1975, and the petitioner filed his written statement in 1977 without denying the execution of the agreement. In 1995, after 18 years, the petitioner sought to amend his written statement to deny the execution of the agreement. The trial court, the revisional court, and the High Court all rejected this request. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the matter and held that the lower courts were justified in refusing the amendment. The Court reasoned that allowing such an amendment after an 18-year delay would fundamentally alter the petitioner's defense and change the basis of the written statement. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no jurisdictional defect or legal infirmity in the High Court's judgment and refused to grant leave to appeal, dismissing the petition.
- Can a defendant be permitted to amend a written statement to deny the execution of an agreement 18 years after the original filing?
- Does an amendment that fundamentally changes the basis of a defense constitute a valid ground for rejection by the court?
ORDER
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment, dated 17- 11-2000, passed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, in Writ Petition No,5346 of 2000.
2. The respondents Nos.1 to 8 instituted, in year 1975, against the petitioner, a suit for specific performance of an agreement. The petitioner filed his written statement on 1-1-1977 wherein the execution of the agreement between two parties was not denied. However, the petitioner moved an application on 6-11-1995 for amendment of the written statement and for permitting him to deny the execution of agreement at a belated stage after 18 years. The application was dismissed by the trial Court on 19-3-1996. His revision petition also met the same fate. The writ petition of the petitioner was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, by the impugned judgment, dated 17-11-2000. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner ought to have been allowed to amend the pleadings as the agreement to sell had never been specifically admitted earlier.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the available record. We do not find any jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. All the three Courts were justified in taking the view that the petitioner sought to change the very basis of his written statement by introducing a. New element of denial of execution of agreement. We agree with the view taken by the High Court that it would change his defence if the petitioner was allowed to amend his written statement after a period of 18 years. The learned counsel was not aware as to what had the fate of the main suit instituted by the respondents. In any case, we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court.
Even otherwise, this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.
Leave to .