MUHAMMAD ARIF TARAR vs MATLOOB AHMAD WARRAICH O — 2025 PLD 691 SUPREME-COURT

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

MUHAMMAD ARIF TARAR VS MATLOOB AHMAD WARRAICH O. VI, R. 17---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S.12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---amendment in pleadings, seeking of---Inordinate delay in seeking amendment of pleadings---Scope---Belated amendments introducing new factual assertions, without credible justification and likely to prejudice the opposing party, cannot be permitted under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C.---Facts in brevity were that the petitioners (vendees) filed a suit for specific performance against the respondent (vendor), concerning an alleged oral agreement to sell an immoveable property---The respondent (vendor) denied the agreement, and during the pendency of the trial, after seeking multiple adjournments for evidence, the petitioner (vendee) filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. seeking to amend the plaint by inserting the specific location where oral agreement was made, i.e. "in the drawing room of the same house"---The Trial Court dismissed the amendment application, but the revision was allowed by the revisional court---The respondent (vendor) successfully challenged this before the High Court, whereby, order passed in revision was set aside---The petitioners (vendees) then filed a present CPLa before the Supreme Court---Core question requiring determination was as to "whether a party can be permitted to amend its pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. to introduce a new factual assertion, central to the controversy, after an inordinate delay of ten years, without adequate justification, and in a manner that potentially prejudices the opposing party"---Held: Petitioner sought to amend a factual assertion specifically relating to the 'alleged place' where the oral agreement was made, after a delay of ten years---Such a request raised serious questions about the bona fides of the petitioners/vendees---amendment in this case was a direct attempt to support and fortify a disputed fact, central to the dispute over the existence of the alleged agreement i.e. its location---The petitioners' amendment was sought after a decade of pendency, and multiple adjournments, all the while failing to lead evidence---The attempt to insert a significant factual detail relating to the alleged oral agreement, namely the location of its execution, after such an extended lapse of time could not be viewed as a benign clarification---Instead, it appeared to be an effort to recalibrate the factual matrix of the petitioners' case in light of the trial's trajectory---The proposed amendment had the effect of adding a key factual detail long after the other side had committed to a line of defence based on the original version of events---The petitioners' conduct did not merit the equitable indulgence contemplated under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C.---High Court's decision to disallow the amendment was legally sound and did not warrant interference---Petition being meritless was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

MUHAMMAD ARIF TARAR vs MATLOOB AHMAD WARRAICH O — 2025 PLD 691 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD