Mst. NAWAB JEHAN BEGUM vs Dr. IMDAD ALI
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order granting the respondent/plaintiff permission to amend their pleadings. The petitioner challenged the amendment on the grounds of significant delay, arguing that the application for amendment was filed nearly two decades after the commencement of the proceedings. The Supreme Court considered whether such a lengthy delay should preclude the amendment of pleadings. The Court held that while delay is a relevant factor in deciding whether to grant or refuse an amendment, it must be balanced against the potential harm caused to the cause of justice by adhering strictly to technicalities. The Court affirmed that there is no statutory limitation period for seeking amendments to pleadings. Relying on established precedents, including Ahsan Kausar and others v. Ahmad Zaman Khan and Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others v. Sarsa Khan, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding the distinction of the present case from settled law. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused.
- Does a significant delay in seeking an amendment to pleadings automatically bar the court from granting permission for such amendment?
- Is there a statutory limitation period for filing an application to amend pleadings?
- Should the court prioritize the cause of justice over procedural technicalities when considering an application for amendment of pleadings?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendant's side; against the grant of permission to the respondent/plaintiff's side to amend the latters 'pleadings'.
2. ' Learned counsel has vehemently contended that the amendment should not have been allowed after such a long time nearly two decades.
3. It is no doubt correct that the point raised by the learned counsel is relevant consideration for grant or refusal of amendment; but, at the same time the delay is to be put in juxtaposition to the harm caused to the cause of justice on the ground of technicality; particularly when the law does not place any limitation in this behalf as held in Ahsan Kausar and others v. Ahmad Zaman Khan 1986 SCMR 1796. It has also been relied upon in the impugned judgment.
4. ' Learned counsel next contended that in the case of Ahsan Kausar afore-noticed another judgment of this Court was relied upon namely Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others v. Sarsa Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 345. He argued that some of the features in the case of Mst. Ghulam Bibi arc distinguishable from the present case.
5. ' After hearing him on this question at some length we have not been able to discover any real distinction. Finding no force in this petition leave to appeal is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.