MUHAMMAD SHARIF and another vs MUHAMMAD LATIF and 3 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that remanded a suit for declaration to the trial court for further proceedings. The petitioners had previously challenged the trial court's decree in the High Court, arguing that they were prejudiced because they were denied the opportunity to file an amended written statement following an amendment to the plaint, which violated principles of natural justice. The High Court accepted this argument, which was conceded by the respondents, and remanded the case to the trial court to rectify this error. Upon approaching the Supreme Court, the petitioners unexpectedly argued that there was no necessity for an amended written statement, effectively challenging the very relief they had successfully obtained in the High Court. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the High Court's decision to remand the case was fully justified given the circumstances and the petitioners' earlier position. The Court affirmed that a party cannot approbate and reprobate by challenging an order that granted them the specific relief they previously sought.
- Can a party challenge a High Court order that grants the specific relief they previously requested?
- Does the failure to allow an amended written statement after an amendment to the plaint constitute a valid ground for setting aside a decree?
- Is a remand order justified when the trial court fails to provide an opportunity to file an amended written statement?
ORDER
' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendant side in a suit for declaration; against the acceptance by the High Court, of their appeal and consequential remand order for further proceedings by the trial Court.
2. One of the grievances of the petitioners in the grounds of appeal submitted before the High Court, was that the respondent/plaintiff side had been permitted to amend their plaint subject to conditions including that the petitioners (appellants before the High Court) would be entitled to submit amended written statement to the amended plaint. And that the trial Court had in that round failed to fulfil this condition, therefore, the decree passed against the petitioners was liable to be set aside on account of this "serious legal error". It was also asserted that the act of the trial Court in this behalf was against the principles of natural justice. Instances were also given in Para 4 of the grounds of appeal to demonstrate how the petitioners had suffered (prejudice) on account of lack of opportunity to them to submit an amended written statement.
3. It appears from the narration in the impugned judgment that this very argument was repeated before the High Court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It was conceded to by the learned counsel for the respondents. Accordingly the plea having been accepted the petitioners' appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to the trial Court for correcting the error.
' Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised an extraordinary pica before us. He contended that there was no need for amendment of the written statement. Accordingly the High Court judgment accepting the petitioners' appeal and remanding the case, was liable to be corrected/set aside.
4. We do not agree with him. The facts and circumstances of the case particularly those noted above fully justify the High Court's, acceptance of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners who was duly constituted agent of the petitioners. The plea raised by the learned counsel is, even on its face, without any force. There is nothing to discuss it any further.
' Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused.