IFTIKHAR AHMAD And Others vs GHULAM FAROOQ And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an order of the Additional District Judge, Attock, regarding a pre-emption suit. The core legal dispute arose when the pre-emptor sought to amend his plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to correct the Khasra number of the suit property, which differed from the number stated in the registered sale-deed. The trial court initially allowed the amendment, but the Additional District Judge reversed this, holding that such an amendment was impermissible. The High Court subsequently interfered with this revisional order. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the significant legal question of whether a pre-emptor can seek to amend a plaint to correct a property description (Khasra number) that contradicts the registered sale-deed, or whether such an amendment effectively constitutes an unauthorized judicial correction of the underlying sale-deed itself. The Court recognized that this issue requires deeper examination to determine the limits of permissible amendments in pre-emption litigation.
- Can a pre-emptor amend a plaint to correct a Khasra number that differs from the description in the registered sale-deed?
- Does an amendment to correct a property description in a pre-emption suit amount to an unauthorized correction of the sale-deed by the Civil Court?
- Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--Iftikhar Ahmad and others seek leve to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 23-4-1986, whereby the writ petition of Ghulam Farooq was accepted and the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Attock, dated 14-9- 1981, was set aside.
2. The brief facts are that Iftikhar Ahmad and others purchased land measuring 2 Kanals equal to 2/3rd share of property comprised in Khasra No. 4509/4491/706 situate at Mauza Fatehjang, for a consideration of Rs.20,000 on the basis of a registered sale-deed. Mutation No.6069 was then attested on 3-6-1980 in favour of the vendees. The sale was pre-empted by Ghulam Farooq respondent and a suit was brought in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Attock. During the recording of the statement of the Patwari, it transpired that the correct Khasra number of the suit property was 4905/4491/706 and not 4509/4491/706 as given in the sale-deed. This prompted the pre- emptor to submit an application under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. For amendment of his plaint. This application was resisted by the vendees but the learned trial Court vide its order dated 17-6-1981 allowed permission to the pre-emptor to amend his plaint. This order was made a subject-matter of revision before the Additional District Judge who set aside the order of the trial Court and dismissed the application for amendment on 14-9-19'81. This order was challenged through a constitutional petition in the High Court which resulted in the impugned order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in the sale-deed Khasra No.4509/4491/706 was sold whether rightly or wrongly and the pre-emptor can pre-empt only that land if he has a superior right of pre-emption. If the piece of land sold is incorrectly described in the sale-deed, it could not be rectified by allowing amendment of the plaint because that would tantamount to the correction of the Khasra number in the very sale-deed which is not the function of the Civil Court. The point raised needs consideration. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted.
Security Rs.2,500.