SUBHAN KHAN and others vs SULLEH KHAN and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit filed by respondent No. 1 in 1971 regarding a sale transaction. The core legal dispute concerns whether the suit was maintainable despite the initial plaint lacking a precise description of the suit land, which the plaintiff sought to rectify through multiple amendment applications. While the trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff after allowing a late amendment, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the suit defective due to partial pre-emption. The High Court subsequently set aside the appellate judgment and restored the trial court's decree. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court was legally justified in reversing the appellate court's findings on the issue of partial pre-emption, particularly in light of the procedural history involving the rejected and eventually allowed amendments to the plaint. The Court ordered the parties to maintain the status quo regarding the suit property pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
- Whether a pre-emption suit is maintainable when the initial plaint lacks a precise description of the suit land?
- Can a trial court allow an amendment to a plaint after multiple previous applications for the same amendment were dismissed?
- Does the inclusion of a note in a plaint regarding the future correction of property description cure a defect in the original pleading?
- Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 7-11-1994 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No,152-D of 1975 filed by respondent No,1 against the appellate judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, setting aside the pre-emption decree in his favour, allowing the same by restoring the judgment/decree of the trial Court.
2. The brief facts are that respondent No,1 filed a suit for pre-emption on 23-1-1971 in respect of a sale transaction covered by a registered sale-deed dated 23-1-1970. In the body of the plaint, the following note was added at the end:-- "That description of the suit land shall be corrected after receipt of the copy of the registered sale- deed. The detail given in the plaint is based on presumption as copy of the sale-deed has not yet been received."
' The above suit was contested by the petitioners inasmuch as it was pleaded that the suit was bad on account of partial pre-emption. It seems that, while the aforesaid suit was pending, on 3-2-1971 respondent No,1 filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. For amendment of the plaint so as to incorporate description of the suit property in terms of the sale-deed, but the same was dismissed on 14-4-1971. Against the above dismissal order, respondent No,1 filed a revision in the High Court, but it also failed and was dismissed in limine on 18-5-1971. It appears that a second application for amendment was filed, which was rejected on 30-7-1971. However, upon a review application filed on 18-4-1972, the amendment was allowed on 14-6-1972 and on the same date the suit was decreed as the evidence by then was already completed and the parties were heard.
The learned trial Court on Issue No,2 concluded that the suit was not defective on account of alleged partial preemption. Against the above judgment/decree, the petitioners filed an appeal, which was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, by the judgment/decree dated 6-1-1975 and the finding on issue No,2 was reversed. Thereupon, respondent No,1 filed aforesaid civil revision, which was allowed in the above terms. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard Mr. Talib H. Rizvi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, and Mian Saeedur Rehman Farrukh, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No,1. We are inclined to grant leave to consider the question, whether the learned Judge in Chambers was justified in reversing the finding of the appellate Court on Issue No,2 and decreeing the suit of respondent No,1 keeping in view the description of the property given in the original plaint and the factum that two applications for amendment were dismissed and upon a review application, the amendment was allowed. Leave is, accordingly, granted. Both the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the suit property.
Cited by 1 case
- BASHIR AHMAD Versus MST. NASEEM FATIMA 2001 CLC 1447