Ch. AHMAD DIN AND 2 Others vs THE AUSTRALASIA BANK LTD., BHALWAL
The respondent-Bank filed a recovery suit against the petitioners based on a loan secured by hypothecated goods. Subsequently, the respondent-Bank filed an application to amend the plaint to explain the circumstances surrounding the hypothecation and the dealing of the goods, which the trial court allowed. The petitioners challenged this amendment through a civil revision, which the High Court dismissed. The petitioners then sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question concerned the permissibility of amending the plaint and whether a revision petition was competent against such an interlocutory order. The Supreme Court held that the amendment did not alter the character of the suit and that the order allowing the amendment did not constitute a 'case decided' so as to make a revision application competent before the High Court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, laying down the principle that interlocutory orders allowing amendments that do not change the suit's character are not amenable to civil revision.
- Does an amendment of the plaint that explains the circumstances of hypothecated goods change the character of a recovery suit?
- Is an order allowing the amendment of a plaint considered a 'case decided' for the purpose of filing a civil revision?
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMED, J.---The respondent-Bank has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 11,715.96 against the petitioners in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sargodha on the ground that the petitioners were granted loan on the hypothecation of certain goods by the respondent-Bank and they have failed to pay the balance of the amount. This allegation was made in para. 4 of the plaint. After the written statement was filed, the respondent-Bank filed an amendment application in order to explain the circumstances under which the goods were hypothecated with the petitioners and the manner in which the goods were dealt with. The learned Civil Judge by order dated the 5th February 1971, allowed the respondent-Bank to amend the plaint on payment of Rs.
2. 50 as costs. The petitioners challenged this order in Civil Revision No. 169 of 1971 and a learned Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated the 1st March 1971, dismissed it. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said order.
3. In support of the petition, Mr. A. R. Shaukat, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that a specific stand was taken by the respondent-Bank in the plaint that the goods were in their possession and by the amendment they wanted to shift their stand. According to the learned counsel this is not permissible under the law. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. We have gone through the amendment allowed by the Civil Judge and are satisfied that the character of the suit has not been changed by it. Moreover, it was not a case decided and, therefore, the High Court was not competent to entertain the revision application. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 14 cases
- SALAHUDDIN Versus ABDUL ZAHIR 2026 PLD 78
- SARDAR ALI Alias SARDARA And Another vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE K.L.R. 2000 Civil Cases 452
- MUHAMMAD ARIFUDDIN vs MUJEEBUNISSA And Other K.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 351
- MUHAMMAD ARIFUDDIN vs Mst. MUJEEBUNNISSA and 3 others 1996 CLC 1372
- NIAMATULLAH KHAN Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BANNU 1994 MLD 2332
- Mst. BILQEES BEGUM vs Haji GHULAM RASOOL 1994 CLC 2296
- Haji MAHMOOD KHAN vs KHALILURREHMAN KHAN and another 1991 MLD 1001
- ABDUL AZIZ SHAH And Another vs ABDUL GHAFOOR And Another 1985 SCMR 221
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs Mst. SHAMA BEGUM alias SHAMA PERVEEN 1985 CLC 2250
- PERVAIZ AHMAD and 8 others vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI and 4 others 1985 MLD 567
- MURAD ALI and 3 others vs SANAULLAH 1987 CLC 1219
- NAZEER AHMAD vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MUZAFFARGARH, AND OTHERS 1983 CLC 113
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD HANIF 1981 CLC 130
- M. G. HASSAN AND 4 Others vs Sheikh RIAZUL HAQ AND 5 Other 1979 SCMR 15