IJAZ MAHMOOD Versus MANZOOR HUSSAIN
This matter arises from a petition challenging concurrent findings of fact regarding the ownership of a disputed house, which both the Trial Court and the first appellate Court found to be owned by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, a finding left undisturbed by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction. The core legal questions involved whether the concurrent findings of fact suffered from any legal infirmity and whether the Trial Court rightly refused an application to amend the written statement to include a plea of adverse possession at the stage of final arguments. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of fact were unexceptionable and that the refusal to allow the amendment of the written statement at a belated stage, without any explanation for the delay and after evidence had already been recorded, was justified. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that amendments seeking to introduce new pleas at a late stage after the conclusion of evidence may be validly refused.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction when no infirmity is shown?
- Can a party be permitted to amend its written statement to raise a plea of adverse possession after the evidence of both parties has been recorded and the case is fixed for arguments?
- Whether the refusal of a trial court to allow a belated amendment of the pleadings without sufficient explanation warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J. -- The main controversy between the parties turned round the question whether the house in dispute was ,owned by Akbar Ali Shah, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents the Trial Court as well as the first appellate Court examined the entire evidence and found that this was in fact owned by him. The High Court in revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere with the concurrent finding of the subordinate Courts. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has not been able to persuade us that the said finding suffered from any infirmity.
2. Before the trial Court the petitioners had moved an application to amend their written statement in order to take up the plea adverse possession. This application was rejected by the trial Court Learned counsel for the petitioners wishes to question the legality the order of the trial Court in this regard. It is to be noticed the petitioners had made the application at a stage when the evidence of both parties had been recorded and the case had been fixed arguments. The amendment, if allowed, would have entailed further recording of evidence. No explanation has been offered by petitioners for not taking up the said plea at the initial stages of the trial. In the circumstances we are not prepared to interfere the order of the trial Court. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
S.Q./I-20/S Petition dismisses
Cited by 4 cases
- Iqbal Ahmad vs Additional District Judge etc 2025 LHC 488
- Manzoor Hussain etc vs Mst. Fazloon Bibi etc 2020 CLC 2001, 2020 LHC 1583
- MUNAWAR MEHMOOD and another vs NADEEM SIDDIQUI and others 2011 CLC 130
- Munawar Mehmood and another vs Nadeem Siddique and others 2010 C.L.R. 1288