FAIZ AHMAD SHAH and others vs Moulvi MUHAMMAD EASA and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the Trial Court's dismissal of an application to amend a written statement in a civil suit. The respondents had filed a suit for declaration of ownership regarding certain land, to which the petitioners initially pleaded that the property was gifted to their predecessor-in-interest by the plaintiffs' predecessor. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners sought to amend their written statement to introduce a new, contradictory plea claiming ownership based on an alleged sale deed from 1888. The Trial Court rejected this amendment, citing the introduction of a contradictory plea, and the High Court affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding that the lower courts' orders were in accordance with the established law regarding the amendment of pleadings. The Court held that a party cannot be permitted to introduce a new, contradictory defense that fundamentally alters the nature of the case after the trial has commenced, particularly when the application lacks sufficient justification or evidence regarding the document's custody.
- Can a defendant be permitted to amend a written statement to introduce a new plea that contradicts the original defense?
- Does an amendment to a written statement that fundamentally changes the nature of the case warrant rejection by the Trial Court?
- Is a party entitled to amend pleadings to introduce a new claim of title based on an alleged sale deed during the pendency of a suit?
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J. -- This petition is directed against the judgment dated 9.5.2001 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench through which revision petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
2. Respondents Nos. 1 to 7 filed suit against the petitioners and other respondents for declaration that entries in the revenue record in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners of ownership were wrong and that they were the owners of the land. Defence plea of the petitioners in the written statement was the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs namely Saphi had gifted, the property to the forefather of the petitioners who was his Peer, therefore, they were the owners of the land. During the pendency of the suit, however, an application was made by the petitioners seeking permission for amendment of the written statement to take a plea that in fact, in the year 1888, the predecessor-ininterest of the plaintiffs had sold the land in dispute to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, therefore, they were the owners of the same by virtue of the sale. Reliance was placed on the entry of a deed which was allegedly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar in the concerned register. There is nothing in the application as to the proper custody of the original document.
3. The Trial Court through order dated 3.2.2001 dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioners wanted to take a contradictory plea which could not be allowed to be taken. Revision petition filed by the petitioners against the said order has been dismissed by the learned Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High Court through the impugned judgment dated 9.5.2001, against which leave is sought.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to satisfy us that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are not in accordance with the law declared by the superior Courts as regards amendment of the pleadings, therefore, the same do not suffer from any legal infirmity. 5. .
For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and .