Mrs. JANA BAI vs Mst. GULSHAN and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sindh High Court, which set aside an eviction order against a tenant and remanded the case to the Rent Controller. The landlords originally sought eviction based on personal requirement, specifically citing the needs of one respondent. However, during the trial, evidence was introduced regarding the requirements of the second respondent and his son. The High Court, identifying a conflict between the pleadings and the evidence, concluded that the tenant was prejudiced. Consequently, the High Court set aside the eviction order but remanded the case, granting the landlords permission to amend their pleadings. The petitioner challenged this remand and the amendment permission, arguing they were impermissible under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal, holding that if the initial setting aside of the eviction order was justified, the subsequent order of remand with leave to amend the pleadings constituted an eminently fair and equitable approach in the circumstances of the case, rendering further examination of the legal contentions unnecessary.
- Can a court remand a case to allow for the amendment of pleadings in an eviction matter?
- Is it permissible to allow an amendment to pleadings when there is a conflict between the initial pleadings and the evidence presented at trial?
- Does the appellate court have the discretion to order a remand to ensure a fair trial when pleadings are found to be deficient?
- Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---Leave to Appeal has been sought from judgment dated 9-1-1984 of the Sindh High Court; whereby, while setting aside the order of eviction of the petitioner (tenant), the case was remanded with permission to the landlords to amend their application for eviction.
2. ' The two respondents applied for the eviction of the petitioner on ground of their personal requirement. In the application the requirement was more specifically mentioned of only one of them namely respondent No,1 and her family. At the trial, however, the requirement of the respondent No,2 and his son Suleman Piyar Ally was canvassed from the landlord's side.
3. ' Although the learned Rent Controller directed eviction of the petitioner on positive finding regarding requirement of the respondents, a learned Single Judge in the High Court thought that there was a conflict in the pleadings and evidence of the respondents. Accordingly treating it as a case of prejudice to the petitioner, the order of his eviction was set aside. At the same time feeling a need for a fair chance to the respondents, the case was remanded with a permission to them to amend the pleadings, under certain conditions.
4. 'The petitioner tenant feeling aggrieved by the remand order as also the permission to amend the pleadings, has sought leave to appeal. His learned counsel has raised two-fold contention: One that the remand was not permissible under the Code of Civil Procedure; and two, that the permission to amend the pleadings is against the provisions of the C.P.C. As also is unjustified on merits. After hearing him on these points we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. Because in case it is assumed that setting aside of the order of ejectment of the petitioner was justified on the grounds stated in the impugned judgment, the order of remand with permission to amend the pleadings would be an eminently fair approach, in the circumstances of the case. Accordingly it is not necessary to examine the contentions any more. The petition, thus is dismissed.