Amjad Ali Vs M/S DKT Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. through Its authorized representative.

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

MINGORA BENCH (DAR-UL-QAZA), SWAT

(Judicial Department)

C.R No. 965-M/2025

Amjad Ali Versus M/S DKT Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd, through its authorized representative Present:

Muhammad Rashid, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Abdullah Munshi, Advocate for respondent.

Date of hearing: 12.01.2026

JUDGME NT

QAZI JAWAD EHSANULLAH, J.-

Petitioner/defendant Amjad Ali has brought this petition assailing the order/judgment dated 03.12.2025 of the learned Addtiional District Judge/Izafi Zilla Qaz-II, Swat whereby application of the petitioner for permission to submit an amended written statement was turned down. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Company instituted a suit against the petitioner/defendant for declaration, permanent injunction, recovery of possession of the suit properties allegedly belonging to the Company, and damages, before the learned District Judge, Swat, which was subsequently entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge-II for adjudication. According to the averments of the plaint, the respondent is a private limited company Tajamul/CS* (S.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

engaged in the public health sector. The petitioner was employed by the respondent Company as Area Sales Manager under a contract of appointment dated 29.01.2021 and was later designated as Senior Area Sales Manager on 22.06.2021. During the course of his employment, the petitioner was provided with certain employment benefits, including a motorcar (Suzuki Alto bearing registration No. BTK-912), fuel allowance, laptop and other allied facilities. The respondent Company alleged that, upon termination of his employment, the petitioner was bound under the policies and rules of the Company to return the aforesaid properties, which he allegedly failed to do.

Upon service of summons, the petitioner appeared and filed his written statement, wherein the claims of the respondent were categorically denied. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner moved an application seeking permission to file an amended written statement to incorporate a plea of set-off, asserting that valuable legal rights were involved and that the proposed amendment was essential for the just and proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The said application, however, was dismissed Tajamul/CS* (S.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

by the learned trial Court vide order dated 03.12.2025, which has given rise to the present revision petition.

3.Arguments heard and record perused.

4.The learned trial Court has declined the petitioner’s request for amendment in his written statement primarily on the ground that, in view of the amendment made in Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C, as notified by this Court vide Notification No. 15-J/2018 dated 29.01.2018, amendments in pleadings are permissible only prior to the framing of issues. Since issues had already been framed in the present case, the application moved by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court. Before examining the legality and propriety of the impugned order, it would be appropriate to advert to the amendments sought by the petitioner in his written statement, which are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience and ready reference:

ےساتاحل0102روےپاموہ هاررعہصونربم00010111ہیہکوخنت هاهغل (i اگڑی ویفل هاور وفڈ ز، ایتری رئیلکسن رسٹیفیکیٹ هاور اموہ هار ڈیملکی هاالوسنئ هارخ هااجت هازینپمکدالایاجےئ۔

ہیہکاگڑیہعمباکذغ هاتدالایاجےئ۔ (ii ن اتاحل0100 روےپاموہ هار هازونجری000111( هارجتابتب ها سیٹیوغلiii واتیمتحہلصیفدقمہمونع هانابالدالایاجےئ۔

Tajamul/CS* (S.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

( رپ هاوڈیٹن ڈنف زلک بسح اقونن هارخی وخنت هاہ ےک اسحب ےس لک رعہصiv المزتم اسولں ںیم دالای اجےئ ۔ اسھت یہ ینپمک اپیسیل ےک اطمقب وگڈلن ڈنیہش هاوررگوجییٹییکلمکمرمقہعمب هاکیونسٹےپدالایاجےئ۔ ذینہ وکتف و رئیک وک وس هات ںیم اصقنن، رمق هاز هاہل تیثیح رعیف الم زتم (v اچہپےنےکوعضنیترکوڑروےپدالایاجےئ۔

( ہلمج ذموکرہ ابال روقم ہعمب سیت دصیف اسالہن هااضہف ات ایتری رئیلکسن رسvi ٹیفیکیٹ هازینپمکدماعہیلعوک هاد هایگیئےکوتقکتدالایاجےئ۔ ( درگی د هادریس اکسج دماع ہیلع دقح هار وہ ها هاور دع هاتل وضحر ےس وصخیص وطر رپvii بلطہنیکیئگ وہیھب ہعمبرخہچوهرہج واتنحمہنولیکقحبدماعہیلعربالخف دمیعرمتمحرفامیئاجےئ۔

Perusal of the written statement would

reveal that, while responding to factual ground No.3 of the plaint, the petitioner had already asserted that a substantial outstanding amount, running into hundreds of thousands of rupees, was recoverable from the respondent Company. Admittedly, the precise details of the said amount were not elaborated, nor was it specifically couched as a plea of set-off or defence with that particularly at that stage; however, such omission, by itself, would not disentitle the petitioner from seeking amendment of the written statement to furnish better and complete particulars of the amounts already referred to therein. Refusal of the petitioner’s request to amend his written statement would effectively deprive him of his right to fully articulate his stance before the Tajamul/CS* (S.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

Court, in the absence of which the Court may not be in a position to identify and adjudicate upon the real controversy between the parties. The amendments sought by the petitioner are, therefore, consistent with and traceable to the assertions already contained in the written statement and, in substance, he does not seek a new defence or set-off rather inclusion of a formal prayer in this regard in consonance with the defence previously taken.

5.The amendment of pleadings, particularly a written statement, occupies a significant place in civil adjudication, as it enables the defendant to fully and effectively place his defence before the Court. Unlike a plaint, amendment of a written statement is to be construed liberally, since it neither initiates litigation nor ordinarily causes prejudice to the opposite party, but rather assists the Court in determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The scope of amendment in pleadings under Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C. is to advance the cause of substantive justice by enabling the Court to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties. The Supreme Court has consistently held that an amendment which does not alter the fundamental character of the suit, nor Tajamul/CS* (S.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

introduces a mutually destructive or contradictory case, ought to be allowed, even if sought at a later stage.

Particularly, where the proposed amendment introduces a plea in the alternative which can naturally arise from the existing pleadings and can co-exist with the original stance, refusal of such amendment would amount to shutting out a legitimate claim or defence1. The law draws a clear distinction between alternative pleas, which are permissible, and contradictory or mutually destructive pleas, which are not. Procedural law being a handmaid of justice, technical objections such as delay or stage of proceedings cannot be allowed to defeat a bona fide amendment necessary for a just adjudication of the lis. Reliance in this regard is placed on Haji Sultan Abdul Majeed (Decd.) through Mehboob Sultan and Habib Sultan and others V. Mst. Shamim Akhtar (Decds) through Mah Jabeen and others2. Wherein it has been held:

“6. ..... So through the proposed amendment, all that the petitioners are seeking is verification of the signatures of Late Ghulam Jillani on the disputed wills. Therefore, we do not consider it at all to be a case of contradictory or mutually destructive pleas, which is being introduced through the proposed amendment. At best, it could be a plea in the alternative that can legitimately be taken in the circumstances of the case. When a plea in the Malik Riaz Ullah V. Mst. Bilawar Jan and others (2022 MLD 2011)

2018 SCMR 82

Tajamul/CS* (S.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

alternative can naturally arise and can co-exist with the main plea, which was not taken in the plaint at the time of filing of the suit then such a plea can be introduced by seeking amendment in the pleadings......”

(Underlining added)

The object of permitting amendment in the pleadings is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure that all interconnected claims and defences are adjudicated in one lis. Reliance is placed on a recent pronouncement of this Court in Mst. Bibi Salma alias Katkai V. Hasan Bhahadar and others (2025 CLC 1571) wherein it has been ruled:

“5. ..... In view of the object of amendment qua the significance of pleadings unless the written statement is filed, the Court would be unable to move ahead for resolution of the dispute between the parties towards its logical conclusion. Declining the request of the petitioner for submission of her written statement (amended) would amount to depriving her of placing her actual stance before the Court and it would negate the provisions of Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C., which is not permissible. The Court would be unable to decide the lis in accordance with law unless the written statement is placed before the court.”

6.Besides, the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, as they obtain pursuant to the amendments made by this Court in exercise of its Rule making authority, undoubtedly provide for a power of the Court to grant permission to amend the pleadings before Tajamul/CS* (S.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

framing of issues; nonetheless they do not take away or prohibit the Court to allow such dispensation at later stage. Such a course is nowhere specifically prohibited and is thus always permissible in view of law laid down in Meera Shafi V. Ali Zafar3 wherein it has been held that Courts are not to act upon the principle that every procedure is to be taken to be prohibited unless it is expressly provided for by the Code of Civil Procedure, but on the converse principle that every procedure is to be understood as permissible till it is shown to be prohibited by law4. It was further held that as a matter of general principle, prohibition cannot be presumed.

7.In light of the foregoing, instant petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner/defendant is allowed to amend his written statement as prayed for.

Announced Dt:12.01.2026 Sd/-

JUDGE

PLD 2023 S.C 211

Narsing Das V. Mangal Dubey (1882) ILR 5 All 163, Noor Elahi V. State (PLD 1966 S.C 70) and H.M. Saya & Co. V. Wazir Ali Industries (PLD

1969 S.C 65)

Tajamul/CS* (S.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah