 |
| Amendment in pleading 2026 CLC 212 |
📌 ترمیمِ دعویٰ کی حدود
– لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ
(2026 CLC 212)
🔷 🟢 تعارفِ مقدمہ
🔶 📖 مختصر حقائق
🔷 ⚖️ عدالت کا فیصلہ
🔶 📌 قانونی اصول
🔷 🚫 عدالت کی اہم آبزرویشنز
🔶 🎯 نتیجہ
🔷 📊 عملی رہنمائی
Must read judgement.
2026 CLC 212
[Lahore]
Before Raheel Kamran, J
KHALID MEHMOOD and another ---Petitioners
Versus
MUHAMMAD ALI alias Tipu and others-Respondents
Writ Petition No. 50314 of 2025, decided on 17th September, 2025.
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-
mann O.VI, R.17-Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Plaintiff failing to mention in plaint exact date, time, place and witnesses of the transaction---Amendment in pleadings sought in order to fill such lacunas-Legality and permissibility---The petitioners/plaintiffs filed a Writ Petition challenging orders passed by the trial court and district court, respectively, whereby their application under O. VI R.17, C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint was partly allowed and their civil revision was dismissed-The petitioners had sought to substitute and expand paragraph No.1 of their plaint to introduce new facts, including specific dates, witnesses, and details of payments allegedly made over 44 years ago in connection with the purchase of the suit property-The trial and appellate courts held that while a minor clarification about sale receipts could be permitted, the proposed additions amounted to a material change in the factual foundation of the case after completion of trial and remand proceedings, rendering the same as an afterthought-Held: In the application for amendment, the petitioners sought to delete "" of the plaint and to add amended حرب" in its place, which prayer was allowed by the Trial Court--This amendment related to the receipts for the sale consideration---The Trial Court observed that these receipts were already mentioned in the original plaint and w were part of the record-This part of proposed amendment was correctly deemed a clarification and necessary for the proper adjudication of the existing controversy the second amendment sought by the petitioners/plaintiffs, side by comparison of the original plaint and the proposed insertions revealed that the proposed amendments were not just a clarification, but a complete overhaul of the factual matrix-It sought to introduce, for the very first time, the specific date of the alleged agreement, the names of three witnesses, the exact time and place of the transaction and a detailed breakdown of installment payments with specific dates and amounts-These were not minor details rather foundational facts that form the very basis of the cause action-The courts below had exercised their jurisdiction judiciously and in accordance with the settled principles of law governing the amendment of pleadings---Petitioners failed to point out any illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the courts below, warranting interference of the High Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution-Petition being devoid of any merit, was dismissed in limine.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
O.VI, R.17-Amendment in pleadings-Scope-An application for amendment of pleadings under R. 17 of O. VI, C.P.C. can be moved at at any any stage s of proceedings---However, authority of the court under the aforementioned Rule remains discretionary-This is manifest not only from the use of word "may" but also "in "in such manner and on such terms as may be just in that provision---Nonetheless, guideline has been provided by the legislature to the effect that only such amendments to the pleadings are to be allowed which are necessary for determining real questions in controversy between the parties..
Abaid Ullah Malik v. Additional District Judge, Mianwali and others PLD 2013 SC 239 rel.
(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
-O.VI, R.17-Amendment in pleadings ca can be sought at any stage of the proceedings---Exception-Where suit was instituted more than a decade ago and it has undergone a full trial, a de decision, and an appeal, and was subsequently remanded and throughout the entire first round of litigation, the petitioners never breathed a word about the specific facts they subsequently wished to plead, the profound silence at the most opportune moments would lead to the inference that the proposed amendment was an afterthought, designed to fill the lacunae and cure the defects exposed in the first round of the litigation.