 |
amendment in the plaint was partially
allowed |
Amendment in the plaint was partially allowed
لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ: ترمیمی درخواست کے اصول اور قانونی اثرات
پاکستان میں دیوانی مقدمات میں دعویٰ میں ترمیم (Amendment in Plaint) ایک اہم قانونی معاملہ ہوتا ہے، جس پر عدالتیں مختلف اصولوں کی روشنی میں فیصلہ کرتی ہیں۔ لاہور ہائی کورٹ، ملتان بینچ کے حالیہ فیصلے W.P.No.15171 of 2022 میں عدالت نے یہ واضح کیا کہ کسی بھی ترمیم کو قبول یا مسترد کرنے کے لیے مخصوص قانونی معیارات کو مدنظر رکھا جاتا ہے۔ اس فیصلے سے یہ سمجھنے میں مدد ملتی ہے کہ ترمیم کی اجازت کن حالات میں دی جا سکتی ہے اور کب یہ ممکن نہیں ہوتی۔
پس منظر:
یہ مقدمہ اقبال احمد بنام ایڈیشنل ڈسٹرکٹ جج وغیرہ کے عنوان سے دائر کیا گیا تھا۔ اس میں درخواست گزار نے دعویٰ میں ترمیم کی اجازت مانگی تھی تاکہ وہ کچھ اضافی قانونی نکات شامل کر سکے۔ ماتحت عدالتوں نے اس درخواست کو جزوی طور پر منظور کیا، لیکن کچھ ترامیم کو مسترد کر دیا۔ اس پر درخواست گزار نے ہائی کورٹ سے رجوع کیا، لیکن عدالت عالیہ نے بھی نیچے کی عدالتوں کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا۔
عدالت کا فیصلہ اور قانونی اصول
جسٹس سید احسن رضا کاظمی نے اپنے تفصیلی فیصلے میں واضح کیا کہ کسی بھی مقدمے میں ترمیم کی درخواست پر غور کرتے وقت درج ذیل اصول لاگو ہوتے ہیں:
1. فریقین کے حقوق متاثر نہ ہوں
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ ترمیم ایسی نہیں ہونی چاہیے جو دوسرے فریق کے حقوق کو متاثر کرے۔ اگر کسی ترمیم سے مخالف فریق کو قانونی نقصان پہنچے، تو ایسی ترمیم قابل قبول نہیں ہوگی۔
2. مقدمے کی نوعیت تبدیل نہ ہو
قانون کے مطابق، ترمیم کا مقصد صرف مقدمے کی وضاحت ہونا چاہیے، نہ کہ اس کی مکمل نوعیت بدل دینا۔ اس کیس میں، اگر ترمیم منظور کر لی جاتی تو مقدمہ "معاہدہ بیع کی تنفیذ" سے "وراثتی تنازعہ" میں بدل جاتا، جو قانوناً درست نہیں تھا۔
3. پہلے سے معلوم حقائق پر ترمیم ممکن نہیں
عدالت نے کہا کہ اگر کسی فریق کو کوئی حقیقت پہلے سے معلوم ہو، تو وہ بعد میں اس حقیقت کی بنیاد پر ترمیم کی درخواست نہیں دے سکتا۔ درخواست گزار کو معلوم تھا کہ وراثتی انتقال (Mutation) پہلے ہی ہو چکا ہے، لیکن اس نے شروع میں اسے چیلنج نہیں کیا۔ اس لیے بعد میں ترمیم کی اجازت نہیں دی جا سکتی۔
4. قانونی حتمیت (Finality of Orders) کو برقرار رکھنا ضروری
اس کیس میں، اضافی کمشنر (ریونیو) کا 20 مارچ 2017 کا حکم حتمی حیثیت اختیار کر چکا تھا۔ درخواست گزار نے اسے وقت پر چیلنج نہیں کیا، اس لیے اب عدالت میں اس معاملے کو دوبارہ نہیں اٹھایا جا سکتا۔
5. عمومی یا غیر واضح ترمیمی درخواست ناقابل قبول ہوتی ہے
عدالت نے کہا کہ اگر کوئی درخواست گزار واضح طور پر یہ بیان نہ کرے کہ وہ کون سی تبدیلی چاہتا ہے، تو ایسی عمومی درخواست کو مسترد کر دینا چاہیے۔ اس کیس میں درخواست گزار نے صرف دعویٰ کے متن میں ترمیم کی درخواست دی تھی، لیکن دعویٰ کے اختتامی حصے (Prayer Clause) میں کوئی تبدیلی نہیں مانگی تھی، جو کہ قانونی طور پر غیر مؤثر تھی۔
فیصلے کے اثرات:
یہ فیصلہ ان تمام وکلاء، اٹارنیز، اور مقدمات دائر کرنے والے افراد کے لیے ایک اہم رہنمائی ہے جو دعوے میں ترمیم کرانا چاہتے ہیں۔ اس سے درج ذیل نتائج اخذ کیے جا سکتے ہیں:
✅ صرف وہی ترمیم قابل قبول ہوگی جو مقدمے کی وضاحت کے لیے ضروری ہو۔
✅ اگر کوئی معاملہ پہلے ہی حتمی طور پر طے ہو چکا ہو، تو اسے ترمیم کے ذریعے دوبارہ نہیں کھولا جا سکتا۔
✅ عدالتیں ترمیمی درخواستوں پر فیصلہ کرتے وقت فریقین کے حقوق کا مکمل جائزہ لیتی ہیں۔
✅ اگر ترمیم سے مقدمے کی نوعیت مکمل طور پر تبدیل ہو جائے، تو وہ ناقابل قبول ہوگی۔
عدالتی نظائر (Precedents) اور متعلقہ کیس لاز
عدالت نے اس فیصلے میں کئی سابقہ عدالتی نظائر کا حوالہ دیا، جن میں شامل ہیں:
- 2001 SCMR 1984 (محمد رمضان بنام لیاقت علی)
- 2016 MLD 533 (عطا الرحمن بنام عبد الرشید)
- 2021 SCMR 772 (بشیر احمد انجم بنام محمد رفیق)
یہ نظائر بتاتے ہیں کہ پاکستانی عدالتی نظام میں ترمیمی درخواستوں کو کس اصول کے تحت قبول یا مسترد کیا جاتا ہے۔
نتیجہ:
لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا یہ فیصلہ ترمیمی درخواستوں کے بارے میں ایک اہم گائیڈ لائن فراہم کرتا ہے۔ اس سے ظاہر ہوتا ہے کہ کسی بھی ترمیم کو قبول کرنے سے پہلے عدالتیں قانونی حقوق، مقدمے کی نوعیت، اور مقدمے کے حتمی ہونے جیسے عوامل کو مدنظر رکھتی ہیں۔ اگر کسی مقدمے میں ترمیم کی ضرورت ہو، تو یہ یقینی بنانا ضروری ہے کہ وہ قانونی اصولوں کے مطابق ہو اور کسی دوسرے فریق کے حقوق متاثر نہ ہوں۔
آپ کی رائے؟
کیا آپ کو لگتا ہے کہ عدالت کا یہ فیصلہ درست تھا؟ اگر آپ کے ذہن میں اس موضوع پر کوئی سوال ہے تو کمنٹ کریں یا ہمیں واٹس ایپ پر رابطہ کریں: 0092-324-4010279
📢 ہمارے بلاگ کو سبسکرائب کریں اور تازہ ترین قانونی اپڈیٹس کے لیے ہمیں فالو کریں!ترمیمی درخواست کے اصول"، "عدالتی نظائر"نمایاں!
Must read Judgement
Stereo. H C J D A 38
Judgment Sheet
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT
MULTAN BENCH MULTAN
(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)
W.P.No.15171 of 2022
Iqbal Ahmad
Vs.
Additional District Judge etc.
JUDGMENT
Syed Ahsan Raza Kazmi, J. Through this Writ Petition
under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner has challenged the orders dated
14.07.2022 and 23.09.2022 passed by learned Courts below
whereby his application for amendment in the plaint was partially
allowed and certain other amendments were declined concurrently.
2.
The brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit
for specific performance with permanent injunction against one
Mst. Munawar Bibi through her legal heirs. The respondents
contested the suit by filing written statement. The respondents
along with their written statement also filed an application under
Order XL rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the
Code”), for appointment of receiver. After getting reply from the
petitioner the learned Trial Court fixed the case for arguments on
said application. In spite of arguing on the application, the
petitioner filed an application under Order VI rule 17 of the Code
seeking amendment in the plaint with the contention that during
subsistence of stay order passed by learned Trial Court the
respondents while violating the stay secured an inheritance W.P.No.15171 of 2022
mutation in their favour with the connivance of Assistant Director
Land Record. In this application, petitioner also sought permission
to challenge mutation No.1131 dated 03.07.2017 which is result of
order dated 20.03.2017 passed by Additional Commissioner
(Revenue) in revision petition filed by respondents 1(a and b)
against Munawar Bibi. In the amendment application, the petitioner
submitted that he also wished to challenge the order dated
20.03.2017 passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue) on the
ground that deceased Munawar Bibi along with her sister and father
belongs to Fiqa Jafria. The respondents opposed this application by
filing written reply and the learned Trial Court after hearing the
arguments, partially accepted the application only to the extent of
one mutation i.e. mutation No.1203 dated 01.04.2022, vide order
dated 14.07.20222, however, it refused the remaining
amendment(s) sought by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the
petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Revisional
Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 23.09.2022.
Hence this petition.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner is aggrieved of the above said both the mutations and
under the law any aggrieved person can challenge any order which
affects his rights. Adds that impugned orders are based on
misreading and non-reading of material available on record as well
as misapplication of law on the subject, therefore, same are liable to
be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying on
judgments reported as Muhammad Ramzan and others vs. Liaqat
Ali and others (2001 SCMR 1984), Dilshad Ali and others vs.
Ahmed Khan and another (2007 CLC 441), Atta-ur-Rehman and
others vs. Abdur Rashid and others (2016 MLD 533), Mst.Iqbal
Fatima through special attorney vs. Khalid Naeem and 2 others
(2017 YLR 2368), Haji Sultan Abdul Majeed (DECD) through
Mehboob Sultan and Habib Sultan and others vs. Mst.Shamim
Akhtar (DECD) through Mah Jabeen and others (2018 SCMR 82),
W.P.No.15171 of 2022
Syed Altaf Hussain Shah and others vs. Multi Professional
Cooperative Housing Society through General Secretary and 4
others (2020 CLC 1119) and Bashir Ahmed Anjum vs. Muhammad
Raffique and others (2021 SCMR 772) contends that proposed
amendments neither change the complexion of the suit nor
introduce any new cause of action asserting that it is settled law that
Courts should take liberal view while allowing amendment
applications.
4.
Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent
vehemently opposed this petition arguing that inheritance mutation
No.1131 and order dated 20.03.2017 were known to the petitioner
at the time of filing of the civil suit, but he opted not to challenge
them initially. Further, contends that deceased Munawar Bibi
during her lifetime assailed the mutation No.1131 through a civil
suit, but it was dismissed. No further appeal or revision was filed
against the said dismissal order, Therefore, the order dated
20.03.2017 passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue) has
attained finality. That said suit was filed by the same learned
counsel who has filed the suit out of which the present petition has
arisen. Adds further that the proposed amendments would not only
change the complexion of the original suit from one for specific
performance of an agreement to sell to a suit for declaration and
cancellation, but also revive the past and closed transaction, which
is not permissible under the doctrine of waiver.
5.
Arguments of learned counsel for the parties have been
heard and record has been perused with their able assistance.
6.
Before delving into the merits of the case, it will be
beneficial to provide an overview of the case for a better
understanding of the controversy involved.
7.
The record reflects that one Nawab Bibi died issueless
and her only surviving relatives were her real sister Munawar Bibi
W.P.No.15171 of 2022
and the respondents No.1(a and b). Initially, her entire property was
mutated in the name of her sister Munawar Bibi vide mutation
No.936 dated 30.09.2010 asserting that Nawab Bibi belongs to Fiqa
Jafria. Respondent No.1(a and b) filed an appeal against the
attestation of said mutation which was dismissed, however, they
filed revision petition before the Additional Commissioner
(Revenue), Sahiwal which was accepted and mutation No.1131
dated 03.07.2017 was attested.
8.
Returning to current matter, the petitioner filed suit for
specific performance of agreements to sell dated 01.09.2010 and
08.03.2022 against the respondents, alleging that deceased
Munawar Bibi had entered into an agreement to sell her property
measuring 33 Kanals and 04 Marlas against total sale consideration
of Rs.85,00,000/- of which an amount of Rs.7 millions was paid to
deceased Munawar Bibi during the period of 2010 to 2017. The
petitioner requested her to receive remaining sale consideration of
Rs.15,00,000/- and mutate her property in his name, however, due
to some litigation between deceased Munawar Bibi and her uncle
Mehram Khan {father of respondent No.1(a and b)} the said land
was not mutated in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner further
alleges that on 06.03.2022 once again he requested the deceased
Munawar Bibi through repsectables of the area for transfer of land
after receiving remaining sale consideration and Munawar Bibi
deceased while giving her assurance also executed a written
agreement with the petitioner on 08.03.2022. Thereafter, she died
and the respondents No.1(a and b) became her legal heirs, who did
not honour the commitment made by deceased Munawar Bibi and
the refusal necessitated the petitioner to institute the instant suit.
9.
There is no cavil to the legal proposition that the Court
always has the jurisdiction under Order VI rule 17 of the Code and
enjoys vast discretionary powers to allow the amendments in
pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. However, such powers
W.P.No.15171 of 2022
are subject to certain conditions/limitations. The main
conditions/limitations are as following: Firstly, the amendments
should not cause prejudice to the other side, meaning thereby that
while allowing amendment(s) in the plaint the defendants’ rights
should also be kept in mind and no amendment should be permitted
which is aimed at changing the complexion of the suit while
introducing a new case based on different cause of action. Secondly,
any right accrued in favour of other party would not be allowed to
be snatched away by permitting any amendment in a cursory
manner. Thirdly, if it is moved with mala fide intention or it is
already in the knowledge of the party at the time of instituting the
suit.
10.
In the instant matter, it is an admitted fact that mutation
No.1131 as well as order dated 20.03.2017 passed by Additional
Commissioner (Revenue) was known to the petitioner, but he chose
not to challenge the same in his suit. Reference may be made to
para-2 of the plaint, which is reproduced hereunder:-
“ہی ہک دماعاہیلعربمن 1 وک 0212 ےس ےل رک 0212کت غلبم-
/220220222روےپ )رتس الھک روےپ ( ادا رک دےیئ اور دماعاہیلع وک اہک ہک وہ
ہیقب -/100220222روےپ ووصل رکےک ارایض اک ااقتنل دمیع ےک انم رکوادے
نکیل دماعاہیلع ےن اےنپ اچچ اخن ےک اسھت دقمہم ابزی یک وہج ےس
ارایض دمیع ےک انم لقتنم ہن یک۔”
In a number of cases this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of Pakistan has held that one cannot be allowed to seek
amendment regarding any fact which was in one’s knowledge
before filing of the pleading(s). Reliance can be placed upon
judgments reported as Ijaz Mahmood and others vs. Manzoor
Hussain and others (1988 SCMR 34) and Abdur Rashid alias
Muhammad Rashid vs. Muhammad Hanif and 2 others (1994
SCMR 2035).
W.P.No.15171 of 2022
11.
Furthermore, the proposed amendments not only
substitute a new cause of action altogether different from the
petitioner’s previous alleged cause of action, but they also cause a
serious injustice to respondents as order dated 20.03.2017 passed by
Additional Commissioner (Revenue) has attained finality.
12.
Bare perusal of the amendment application reveals that
petitioner sought amendment only in the body of the plaint without
seeking any amendment in the prayer clause. If for an instance the
application of the petitioner is allowed, it would serve no purpose
except wastage of precious time of the Court. The following
observations were made in case law cited as Matwali Khan vs. Shah
Zaman and others (PLD 1965 Azad J & K 26) and relevant extract
therefrom is reproduced hereunder:-
“A party desiring to amend his pleadings has to
make an application in writing to the Court
stating precisely the amendment he seeks to make
in his pleadings and the Court should also pass a
clear order showing the nature and extent of the
amendment allowed. A pleading can be amended
only to the extent allowed by the Court. No
general prayer for an amendment can be made or
allowed.”
13.
In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to seek
amendments as the proposed amendments are not justifiable on
numerous grounds i.e. (i) the proposed amendment was already in
the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of institution of the suit,
(ii) through the proposed amendment petitioner attempted to revive
the past and closed transaction, (iii) the valuable rights accrued in
favour of the respondents cannot be allowed to be snatched away,
(iv) the petitioner is seeking general amendments without
specifying them, and (v) proposed amendments are against the
standards set by both this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Pakistan. The case law referred to by the learned counsel for the
petitioner are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of
the present case. Therefore, the orders passed by both the Courts
jurisdiction. Consequently, this Writ Petition is dismissed with no
within a period of six months. However, due to the pendency of
be adhered to. Consequently, the learned Trial Court is now
For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp
Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.
No comments:
Post a Comment