2026 C L C 212

 2026 C L C 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)---

----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 ب"جز "of

the plaint and to add amended ب"جز "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 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---Regarding the second amendment sought

by the petitioners/plaintiffs, a side by side 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 of 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

any stage 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 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 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 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.

Ch. Zahid Imran for Petitioners.

ORDER

RAHEEL KAMRAN, J.---Through this writ petition, the petitioners

have challenged the order dated 03.05.2024 passed by the Civil Judge,

Sargodha, whereby application filed by petitioners-plaintiffs under

Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) seeking

amendment in the plaint was partly allowed as well as order dated

23.06.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sargodha, whereby

civil revision filed by the petitioners against the order passed by the

Civil Judge was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned

orders passed by the courts below are arbitrary, perverse, and

contrary to both the law and the facts, thereby leading to a miscarriage

of justice. He maintains that the sought amendments do not contradict

the original plaint; instead, they serve to elaborate and clarify existing pleadings, which is a permissible practice. Learned counsel

emphasizes that the petitioners application was partly declined merely

on the ground of delay, whereas according to Order VI Rule 17 of the

C.P.C., an amendment can be sought at any stage of proceedings if it is

necessary to determine the real question in controversy. Learned

counsel further argues that the refusal to allow these amendments will

cause irreparable loss and prejudice to the petitioners case because

any evidence presented that goes beyond the pleadings will not be

considered by the court and this would effectively deny them a fair

opportunity to prove their case.

3. Heard. Available record perused.

4. The trial court in the impugned order dated 03.05.2024 recorded

the following findings:-

Above findings were affirmed by the Additional District Judge by

way of impugned order dated 23.06.2025.

5. In the instant case, the controversy revolves around the

interpretation and application of Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.), which reads as under:-

17. Amendment of pleadings. The Court may at any stage of the

proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in

such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such

amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose

of determining the real questions in controversy between the

parties.

Plain reading of above provision suggests that an application for

amendment of pleadings under Rule 17 ibid can be moved at any stage 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 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. The discretionary

power under Rule 17 ibid is, however, further guided by principles

enunciated by the superior courts from time to time. The Supreme

Court of Pakistan in the case of Abaid Ullah Malik v. Additional District

Judge, Mianwali and others (PLD 2013 SC 239) elaborated some of the

principles governing exercise of such discretionary power in the

following terms:-

There can be no cavil that the court has ample authority and

discretion to allow amendments of the pleadings in

appropriate cases, which authority may be exercised at any

stage of the proceedings in the trial, and in certain cases

amendments can be permitted at the stage of appeal or even

in the revisional jurisdiction. There also can be no

disagreement that the power and authority in allowing the

amendments shall be liberally exercised, however, keeping in

view the salutary rule, that the proposed amendment(s) is/are

expedient for the purposes of determining the real questions

in controversy between the parties, it should not alter the

nature of the suit or the defence. Similarly, at the same time

some important fundamentals should also not be lost in sight

and must be kept in mind by the courts while exercising such

authority, in that, the amendment sought/proposed must not

be tainted with dishonesty of purposes; it is not meant to

withdraw and resile from an admission made in the pleadings

of the parties; it should not cause prejudice to the opposite

side, particularly to deprive such (opposite) side of a benefit

attained by it from the evidence adduced on the record by the

party asking for the amendment; the conduct and the motive

of the party and the object/purpose behind the request for the

amendment.

(Emphasis supplied by this Court)

6. In the application for amendment, the petitioners sought to delete

of the plaint and to add amended 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 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.

7. The second amendment sought by the petitioners was to assert

the following paragraph at the end of paragraph No.1 of the plaint:.

A copy of the amended plaint is annexed with the plaint, perusal

whereof indicates that in paragraph No.1, the petitioners have claimed

that their predecessor in interest purchased the suit plot from

predecessor in interest of defendants Nos. 1 to 4/e more than 44 years

ago; the agreed upon sale consideration had been paid; possession of

the plot had been delivered to the purchaser. The relevant extract

from paragraph No.1 of the plaint is reproduced below:-

A side by side comparison of the original plaint and the proposed

insertions reveals that the proposed amendments are not just a

clarification, but a complete overhaul of the factual matrix. It seeks 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 are not minor details rather

foundational facts that form the very basis of the cause of action.

8. The timing of filing of application for amendment by the

petitioners is also critically important. There is no cavil with the position that delay for itself, cannot be adequate reason for refusing

an amendment, yet this is not a case where an amendment is sought

shortly after the filing of the suit upon discovery of a bona fide

mistake. The suit was instituted more than a decade ago. It has

undergone a full trial, a decision, and an appeal, and was subsequently

remanded. Throughout the entire first round of litigation, the

petitioners never breathed a word about the specific facts they now

wish to plead. As noted by the courts below in the impugned orders,

petitioners witnesses while in the witness box, did not depose to these

facts. This profound silence at the most opportune moments leads to

the inference that the proposed amendment is an afterthought,

designed to fill the lacunae and cure the defects exposed in the first

round of the litigation. The plea that the omission was due to the ill

advice of a previous counsel is clearly a weak and unconvincing

excuse, which cannot be allowed to operate to the prejudice of

respondents.

9. The courts below have exercised their jurisdiction judiciously and

in accordance with the settled principles of law governing the

amendment of pleadings. Learned counsel for the petitioners failed to

point out any illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by

the courts below, warranting interference of this Court in the exercise

of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic

Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

10. For the foregoing reasons, instant petition, being devoid of any

merit, is hereby dismissed in limine.

Office is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the trial court,

forthwith.

UN/K-20/L Petition dismissed.