ZULEFQAR ALI vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB
This petition arises out of suit proceedings instituted by the petitioner for rendition of accounts against the respondent. The trial court framed a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the suit and dismissed it without going into evidence. The appellate court dismissed the petitioner's appeal, and the High Court in revisional jurisdiction refused to allow an amendment of the plaint to convert the claim into one for payment of money, holding that it would set up a new case after inordinate delay. The core legal question is whether an amendment of the plaint seeking to change the nature of the suit from rendition of accounts to payment of money can be permitted at the revisional stage after prolonged litigation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings were unexceptionable as the petitioner persisted with the original form of the suit for years and attempted to set up a new case at a belated stage. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether a plaintiff can be permitted to amend the plaint at the revisional stage to convert a suit for rendition of accounts into one for payment of money?
- Does seeking a specific amount at the revisional stage amount to setting up a new case after inordinate delay?
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.--This petition arises out of suit proceedings which the petitioner had instituted for rendition of accounts against the respondent. On the pleadings of the parties a preliminary issue was framed by the trial Court "as to whether the suit was not maintainable in the present form". The learned trial Court, therefore, found it unnecessary to go into the evidence and dismissed the suit on the ground of its non-maintainability. The said judgment was challenged in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge which was dismissed on 17-3-1977. The matter was thereupon taken up by the petitioner to the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction and it was only during the course of arguments when the patent defect in the form of the suit was brought to the petitioner, he came up with an application seeking amendment of the plaint than converting his claim from rendition of accounts to one for payment of money. It was contended that instead of dismissing the suit the trial Court should have directed the petitioner to amend his plaint.
2. The learned High Court, however, came to hold that by claiming a specific amount at the revisional stage, the petitioner was virtually attempting to set up a new case and that too after an inordinate delay The pertinent issue in the case had been framed on basis of the pleadings but the petitioner continued with the suit for long years and did not feel inclined to amend plaint but rather persisted with his suit in the form it was filed.
3. The above findings of the learned High Court are unexceptionable and call for no interference.
The petition merits no consideration and it is dismissed accordingly.
Cited by 1 case
- Messrs RIAZ MASOOD & BROTHERS vs PAKISTAN and another 1989 SCMR 787