Lahore High Court Upholds Amendments to Pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC 1908 --- Lahore High Court, Lahore
Islamabad 16-01-2025: In a significant ruling, the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, upheld decisions by the Civil Court and the Additional District Judge, Khanewal, permitting amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The judgment, delivered by Mr. Justice Sultan Tanvir Ahmad, emphasized the liberal application of procedural rules to achieve substantial Justice and avoid unnecessary litigation.
The Petitioner, Maqbool Ahmad, filed a writ petition challenging the decisions dated 26.11.2021 and 23.02.2022, which allowed the respondents to amend their plaint. The amendments included the addition of the word “declaration” in the suit’s heading and the inclusion of challenges to certain revenue orders deemed ultra vires. The petitioner alleged procedural mala fide and contended that these amendments fundamentally altered the nature of the suit.
Mr. Justice Sultan Tanvir Ahmad observed that amendments to pleadings should be allowed liberally if they address the real questions in controversy and do not change the fundamental nature of the suit. The Court rejected the Petitioner’s claims of mala fide, noting that the procedural oversight in omitting the word “declaration” in the original plaint was unintentional and shared by all parties involved.
Amendments should be allowed at any stage of proceedings if they do not alter the suit’s character. This principle was supported by Mst. Ghulam Bibi Vs. Sarsa Khan (PLD 1985 SC 345) and Faisalabad Electric Supply Co. Vs. Munir Ahmad Ranjha (2020 CLC 68).
Delay in applying for amendments does not preclude relief if the amendments are necessary to resolve the substantive issues, as discussed in Nizam Ullah Vs. Mst. Gohar Taja (2003 YLR 2008) and Dausa Vs. Province of Punjab (2016 SCMR 1621).
The Court highlighted the importance of amendments in preventing unnecessary litigation and facilitating fair adjudication.
Even amendments barred by limitation can be allowed if they are in the interest of Justice, as established in L.J. Leach & Co. Vs. Jardine Skinner & Co. (AIR 1957 SC 357).
The Court upheld the decisions of the lower Courts, affirming that the amendments did not introduce a new cause of action or prejudice the Petitioner. It directed the trial Court to expedite the proceedings and resolve the case within six months.
This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s role in prioritizing substantive Justice over procedural technicalities. Legal experts view it as a benchmark for future cases involving amendments to pleadings, particularly under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The judgment underscores the importance of balancing procedural fairness with the need for effective adjudication.
This development has sparked discussions among legal professionals, with many hailing it as a progressive interpretation of procedural law.
Powered by Froala Editor
