SHARAF AND 8 Others vs SARDAR BIBI AND 10 Other
These petitions arise out of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court allowing amendments to a plaint sought by the respondents in a pre-emption suit. The predecessor of the respondents had instituted a pre-emption suit in November 1959. Subsequently, the respondents filed applications under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint by substituting and adding certain Khasra numbers, which were initially rejected by the trial court. The High Court, however, allowed the revision petitions and permitted the amendments. The core legal question concerns the propriety of allowing amendments to pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to include or substitute property details in a pre-emption suit. The Supreme Court held that the Code grants wide powers to courts to allow amendments necessary for determining the real questions in controversy, and the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the High Court exercised its discretion unreasonably. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the principle that discretionary orders permitting amendments to pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17 will not be interfered with unless shown to be unreasonable.
- Whether the court has the power to allow amendment of a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to add or substitute Khasra numbers in a pre-emption suit?
- When can an appellate or revisional court interfere with the discretion exercised by a lower court regarding the amendment of pleadings?
- Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-Both these petitions arise out of the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court allowing the amendments sought for by the respondents.
2. The predecessor in interest of respondents had instituted a suit for pre-emption on the 11th November 1959, against the petitioners who are purchasers. On the 27th September 1966, the respondents applied for amendment of the plaint under Order VI. Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the substitution of some Khasra Numbers mentioned in the plaint. This application was rejected on the 13th October 1966, and the respondent filed a Civil Revision No. 511. Of 1965, before the High Court.
3. On the 8th November 1966, the respondents made another application for the amendment of the plaint under Order VI, rule 17 and prayed for adding a Khasra Number, namely, Khasra No. 264 in Khata No. 18 which had not been included in the plaint. This application too, was rejected on the 18th November 1966, and the respondents accordingly filed Civil Revision No. 612 of 1966 before the High Court. The High Court on the 7th February 1972. Allowed both the petitions of the respondents and directed the amendments prayed for by the respondents to be made.
4. The petitioners have now challenged the validity of the order of the High Court.
5. Order VI, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Court may at any staee of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real ques--tions in controversy between the parties. It is evident that the Code has given wide powers to the Court to allow amendments in the pleadings. The petitioners have failed to satisfy us that the High Court exercised its discretion in this matter unreasonably.
6. We do not find any substance in these petitions and accord--ingly dismiss both the petitions.