ABDUR RAZZAQ Versus MARIAM BAI

ORDER

1. The applicant has felt aggrieved against the order of the Additional District Judge by which he accepted the appeal of the respondent No.l and set aside the order of the original Court by which the suit filed by respondent No.l had been dismissed and the amendment sought by the respondent No. 1 had been disallowed. The respondent had filed suit for declaration that the documents which had been procured by defendant No.2 were forged and that the entries made on that basis in the record of K.M.C. be cancelled. The suit was in respect of immovable property which was claimed by respondent No.l and the same had been get mutated by the petitioner in his favour. During the pendency of the suit, the K.M.C. also issued the lease of the property No. 1735/586, new Anjum Colony, Karachi in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No.l realised the difficulty and filed an application for amendment and prayed for cancellation, of the lease by K.M.C. The petitioner opposed the same end also sought dismissal of the suit as having become infructuous cm account of the lease. The Civil Judge agreed with the petitioner and rejected the amendment application and dismissed the suit. In appeal the process was reversed. Syed Hassar Asghar, Advocate contended that the appellate Court could not have entertained the appeal against the order dismissing amendment application. This is a technical objection and is easily met by the argument that the Additional District Judge had the power of revising the said order, and therefore, this technical objection is without any force.

2. The learned counsel then contended that the provisions of section 108 of Municipal Ordinance have been ignored by the two Courts below and that the appeal should have been filed by the respondent in respect of lease granted to the petitioner. This objection is in respect of premature filing of the suit for declaration in respect of lease granted by the Mayor and it can always teen taken by the applicant in the civil suit, and therefore, the same is hardly sufficient to assail the order which has been passed by the Additional District Judge in allowing the amendment sought by the respondent and restoring the suit.

3. The amendment was only incidental to the main contention raised in the suit and, therefore, the amendment should have been allowed.

4. This revision application is found to be without merit and is hereby dismissed in limine. C.M.As. are also dismissed. I however, make it clear that the applicant will be entitled to raise the plea in the suit about the in-competency of the suit without resorting to the provision of section 108 of the Municipal Ordinance.

5. H . B . T . / A‑292 / K Revision dismissed.