CHAHAT KHAN Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KASUR.

The facts leading to this petition are that Chahat Khan petitioner instituted a suit for pre‑emption against Rozdar Khan respondent. On 20‑12‑1984 he moved an application for the amendment of the plaint so as to change the number of, Khasra from 2585 to 2589. The learned trial Court accepted the application on 27‑1‑1985 holding that the amendment sought for was of a formal nature which would not change the nature of the suit. Feeling aggrieved Rozdar Khan filed a revision which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur on 4‑5‑1985 and the amendment prayed for by Chahat Khan petitioner was disallowed.

Hence this constitutional petition.

2. It is contended that the pre‑requisites laid down in section 115, C.P.C. for the assumption of jurisdiction by a revisional Court were lacking and thus the revisional Court was not possessed of any jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court and further that the order allowing amendment of the pleadings could not be termed as a 'case decided!. .

3. According to the petitioner he was misled by the sale‑deed because the vendor had incorrectly mentioned therein Khasra No. 2585 instead of 2589 and the petitioner had drafted the plaint taking Khasra number from the attested copy of the sale‑deed from the office of sub‑Registrar, Kasur and when it was got exhibited as EXh.P.l he came to know that the respondent had overwritten Khasra numbers whereupon he moved the trial Court for amendment of the plaint so as to mention the correct Khasra number. The trial Court granted the application holding that the amendment was of formal nature which would not change the nature of the suit. The learned Additional District Judge, Kasur, set aside the order of the trial Court on the ground that the petitioner had failed to point out any cogent reason justifying amendment at such a belated stage and that he should have been vigilant to seek amendment at the earliest.

4. The crucial question that falls for determination is as to whether order allowing amendment could be termed as a 'case decided'. Bahadur Shah and 2 others v. Ashraf and 9 others P L D 1973 Lah. 513 and Ch. Ahmad Din and 2 others v. The Australasia Bank Ltd. , Bhalwal 1971 S C M R 507 may be referred in this behalf where it was held that order allowing amendment was not a 'case decided'. A perusal of the order of the learned trial Court shows that amendment was allowed on sound grounds which would not have changed the nature or character of the suit. The petitioner was misled by the sale‑deed supplied to him by the sub‑Registrar Office. It was thus not a case a of any material irregularity conferring jurisdiction on the learned Additional District Judge to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the order passed by him is declared to be without jurisdiction, lawful authority and of no legal effect and resultantly the petition is accepted and the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge is set aside.

Parties are left to bear their own costs.

S.Q./C‑17/L Petition accepted.