SAEED AHMED vs BIBI KHOURD O — 2025 PLD 113 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

SAEED AHMED VS BIBI KHOURD O. VI, R. 17---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration and partition of joint properties---application for amendment of plaint---Proposed amendment not specified with exactitude---Plaintiffs filed an application under O. VI, R. 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('C.P.C.') praying for necessary amendments in the plaint---Trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioners/ plaintiffs---Petitioners/plaintiffs filed constitutional petition as their revision petition was also dismissed---Validity---Provisions of O. VI, R. 17, C.P.C., empower any party to a suit to alter or amend its pleadings in such manner as may be just; from the said requirement of law, it is clear that any party to a litigation is supposed to be clear and categoric in what it/they are praying to be inserted in already filed pleadings by way of amendment---For this, an applicant(s) under O. VI, R. 17, C.P.C. should indicate in clear terms as to which part of the pleadings, it/they intend to add or delete and in case of addition, proposed addition must be provided in unequivocal terms---Proposed amendment must not be vague or evasive---In the present case, the application moved by the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking amendment, it was difficult to ascertain, with some exactitude, as to what was required to be added in the already filed plaint and at which part of the plaint---The wording used in R. 17 of O. VI, C.P.C., clearly suggests that relevant portions of the pleadings must be pointed out by the person(s), intending to cause any amendment in the pleadings, and the portion, which is to be inserted as a result of alteration or amendment is concerned, should be specifically provided---The application moved by the petitioners/plaintiffs was lacking completely in this regard---Nowhere in the application, any proposed amendment, in clear terms, had been provided and similarly, it was not mentioned as to in which part of the already filed plaint, the proposed amendment was to be added or altered---General prayer for amendment cannot be made or allowed and such proposed amendment should be in writing and in explicit form and in the same way, order if allowing amendment should also be specific and clear showing nature and extent of amendment allowed---No illegality or irregularity had been noticed on the part of the Courts below while dismissing the application moved by the petitioners/plaintiffs, seeking amendment in the plaint---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

SAEED AHMED vs BIBI KHOURD O — 2025 PLD 113 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD