Pakistan Case Law
2003 CLD 1610

Messrs MAROOF KNITWEAR (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive and 8

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2003 CLD 1610
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,818 of 2000 Appeal No,818 of 2000
Date2002-05-24
Judge(s)Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri and Munir A. Sheikh
Authored byMunir A. Sheikh
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment and order dated 25-4-2000 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the petitioners' application seeking amendment in their application for leave to appear and defend the suit was dismissed by the learned Judge in Chamber in the exercise of judicial discretion. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the refusal of the High Court to permit an amendment in the pleadings at that stage suffered from any illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity warranting interference. The Supreme Court held that while courts possess the discretionary power to allow amendments to pleadings at any stage of proceedings, such discretion is not mandatory and does not compel the court to grant amendments in every instance. Finding that the discretion exercised by the High Court was neither arbitrary nor illegal, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, while clarifying that the petitioners remained at liberty to use existing material on the record to substantiate their original application.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the court is bound to allow an amendment in pleadings at any stage of the proceedings once an application is moved?
  • Does the discretionary power of the court to permit amendments to pleadings compel its exercise in every case?
  • Can a High Court's refusal to allow an amendment in an application for leave to appear and defend a suit be interfered with if it suffers from no illegality or arbitrariness?
leave to appealamendment of pleadingsjudicial discretionleave to appear and defendcivil procedure

ORDER

' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment/order, dated 25-4-2000 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore by which application moved by the petitioners seeking amendment in their application for leave to appear and defend the suit has been rejected.

2. Learned Judge in Chamber of the High Court on considering the circumstances came to the conclusion that it was not a fit case for allowing the application in his discretion.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that amendment in the pleadings according to established law could be allowed at any stage of the proceedings and even in proceedings in the final appeal against the judgment of the trial Court, therefore, the amendment sought should have been allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. There is no cavil with the proposition that the Court in its discretion is vested with the power to allow amendment in its discretion in the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings but it does not bind the Court to allow the amendment in all the cases once an application is moved. The discretion exercised by the Court for not allowing the amendment in this case has not been shown to have suffered from any illegality or arbitrariness, therefore, we find no merits in this petition.

5. Needless to add that the petitioners shall be at liberty to use material available on the record of the suit in support of and to substantiate the grounds raised in the original application for grant of leave to appear and defend the suit.

6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

Cited by 8 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.