IMAM HUSSAIN Versus SHER ALI SHAH

ORDER

AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑ ‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 21‑10‑1992 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No. 1577/D/1992 filed by the petitioner against the concurrent judgments/decrees of the two Courts below dated 1‑12‑1991 and 17‑6‑1992 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Depalpur, and the learned Additional District Judge, Depalpur, in Civil Suit No. 547 of 1987 and Civil Appeal No. Nil of 1992, respectively, dismissing the petitioner's suit and appeal arising there from, declining the above civil revision in limine.

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner through a gift deed dated 10‑5‑1980 gave the suit land to her daughter, Mst. Shah Begum. It appears that Mst. Shah Begun died on 18‑3‑1986 leaving behind the respondents as the legal heirs. After her death, the petitioner filed above suit through her next friend challenging the validity of the gift on the ground that at the time of execution of the above deed, she was insane. The above suit was resisted by the respondents. The learned trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence, held that the petitioner had not produced any medical certificate in order to prove that she was insane at the time when the document Tamleeknama No. 1404 dated 10‑5‑1980 was written. It was also observed that the document was attested by the Sub‑Registrar and the presumption of truth was attached to the attestation order dated 28‑10‑1991. The suit, therefore, was dismissed. The petitioner's above appeal also failed through the above judgment/decree of the learned Additional District Judge. Thereupon, the petitioner filed aforesaid civil revision, which has also been dismissed.

The petitioner has, therefore filed the present petition for leave to appeal.

3. In support of the above petition, Mian Khurshid Alam Ramay, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that before the learned Judge in Chambers the petitioner lied an application for seeking amendment of the plaint for adding the ground that the gift was invalid as the same was not accepted by Mst. Shah Begum and physical possession of the suit land was not given, which application was not disposed of by the learned Judge in Chambers.

4. The above contention has not impressed us. In our view, the petitioner was not entitled to seek the amendment of the plaint in the above civil revision after the expiry of nearly five years from the date of filing of the suit with the object to change the complexion of the suit. No doubt this Court has held in a number of cases that an application for amendment of the pleading can be entertained at any stage of the proceedings, but, at the same time, it has been consistently held that the amendment of the plaint cannot be allowed to change the complexion of the suit. In the present case, the above belated attempt of the petitioner to amend the plaint was not warranted by the facts and law. No exception can be taken to the impugned order as the High Court has maintained the concurrent finding of the two Courts that the gift was valid Leave is refused,

A.A./I‑196/5 Leave refused.