ABDUR RASHID alias MUHAMMAD RASHID vs MUHAMMAD HANIF and 2 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the revisional court refusing to allow an amendment to a written statement. The petitioner sought to amend his written statement in a civil suit for permanent injunction seven years after its filing, claiming a change in the possession status of the disputed property. The trial court dismissed the application, citing the inordinate delay and the fact that the facts were within the petitioner's knowledge at the time of the original filing. The High Court declined to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction, noting that the discretion exercised by the lower courts was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that an amendment to a written statement should not be permitted at a belated stage, particularly when the facts were known to the party from the outset and the case had already reached the argument stage. Leave to appeal was refused.
- Can a court refuse an application for amendment of a written statement if it is filed at a belated stage after evidence has been recorded?
- Is interference in constitutional jurisdiction warranted when lower courts have exercised their discretion to refuse an amendment to a written statement without acting arbitrarily or capriciously?
- Is an Intra-Court appeal competent against the dismissal of a writ petition by a learned Judge in chambers under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
- Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 2, Law Reforms Ordinance 1972
ORDER
' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Respondent No, 1 Muhammad Hanif filed a civil suit against the petitioner for permanent injunction on 13-12-1982, which is pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Lahore.
Written statement was filed by the petitioner as defendant in the suit on 7-3-1983. Petitioner filed application for amendment of his written statement under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. Asserting that plaintiff in the suit was never in possession at the time of institution of suit and forcibly occupied property in dispute on 6-2-1983. Application for amendment of written statement was dismissed by the trial Court on 16-1-1989 on the ground that it was filed with motive to delay the conclusion of hearing of the suit as the said application was filed belatedly after 6 years, In paragraph 3 of the written statement it was stated that defendant in the suit was in possession of the disputed property. If there was truth in the proposed amendment, the same could have been mentioned in the written statement.
2. Against the rejection of application of amendment of written statement, petitioner filed revision which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, vide his order dated 16-4-1992. Petitioner then filed writ petition in the High Court, which is dismissed on the ground that two Courts having jurisdiction have decided against allowing application for amendment in the written statement for valid reasons, hence interference was not warranted with such finding in the constitutional jurisdiction as held in the case of Noor Muhammad v. Sarwar Khan (PLD 1985 SC 131) particularly when it is not shown that discretion had been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or fancifully. Since writ petition had been dismissed in the High Court by the learned Judge in the chamber, Intra- Court appeal was filed which is dismissed in limine by Division Bench of the High Court as incompetent as contemplated under proviso to section 2 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972.
3. We are satisfied with the reasons assigned by the High Court for dismissal of writ petition and non-interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction on the finding of two Courts below that application was filed after 7 years for amendment in the written statement, which was a very late stage and before that evidence had been recorded and the case was fixed for arguments. We also agree that proposed amendment as stated in the application is such which was within the knowledge of the petitioner and he could have easily mentioned it in the written statement which he did not do and there was no justifiable reason for him to wait for 7 years to divulge it for the first time so late. We are unable to see any flaw or legal infirmity in the order passed by the High Court declining interference with the Constitutional jurisdiction. In the result leave is refused and the petition is dismissed.
Cited by 7 cases
- Iqbal Ahmad vs Additional District Judge etc 2025 LHC 488
- Industrial Development Bank Limited (Formerly Industrial Development 2022 CLD 297
- Syed Sarfraz Ali vs M/s.Standard Chartered Bank and another 2016 SHC 37
- Master ABDUL MAJEED vs Haji MUHAMMAD BACHAL and another 2002 CLC 884
- Master ABDUL MAJEED vs Haji MUHAMMAD BACHAL And Another K.L.R. 2001 Civil Cases 328
- DHARAMDAS and others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others 1999 MLD 2968
- Mst. WAZIR BEGUM Alias WAZIRAN BIBI vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ARIFWALA, DISTRICT PAKPATTAN SHARIF And OTHER 1997 CLC 1654