-Party to a proceedings, if once taken a particular stand, it was estopped to effect a change in the same and admissions made in pleadings could not be permitted to be retracted subsequently.

 2012 C L C 1776

 [Lahore] Before Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi, J NASIM BEGUM-

---Petitioner versus FARAH ABSAR and 7 others---

-Respondents Civil Revision No.801 of 2011, heard on 18th July, 2012.

 (a) Pleadings--- 

 ----Amendment of pleadings---Scope---Although courts were supposed to be liberal in granting amendments in pleadings but such liberty was not to be stretched to such an extent that parties were allowed to adopt a complete U-turn from what had originally pleaded; particularly in absence of any justifiable reason for getting the original pleadings amended--- No amendment prejudicial to the interest of a party who, by means of the original pleadings, had accrued some rights; could be allowed under the law---Party to a proceedings, if once taken a particular stand, it was estopped to effect a change in the same and admissions made in pleadings could not be permitted to be retracted subsequently. 

 (b) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)--- 

----Ss. 384 & 383--- Succession certificate--- Revision---Maintainability---Application of the respondent-Bank for amendment in its written reply in relation to the Bank Account of the deceased was allowed by the Trial Court---Said order of Trial Court was assailed by the petitioners---Contention of the respondent Bank was that revision against said order was not maintainable---Validity---Proceedings under the Succession Act, 1925, even if carried out by Civil Court, were always deemed to be proceedings before the District Judge---Right of appeal was available under section 384(1) of the Succession Act, 1925 in cases of granting , refusing or revoking of a certificate; whereas by virtue of section 383(3) the High Court was provided the right to entertain revision from an order of District Judge in cases other than the ones mentioned in section 384(1), Succession Act, 1925---Revision was therefore, competent.

 (c) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)---

 ----S. 383(3)---Revision---Jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---High Court had inherent powers to look into and call for the record of any case which had been decided by any court subordinate to the High Court in which no appeal lay and if such subordinate court appeared to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or to have acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 

 Ch. Imran Hassan Ali for Petitioner. Muhammad Amin Jan and Malik Abdul Jalil for Respondents Nos.1 to 6. Raja Tahir Mehmood for Respondent No.7.

 JUDGMENT 

 IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.--- A dispute to obtain the shares from the estate of deceased Malik Khuda Bakhsh is pending before the Civil Courts at Chakwal. United Bank Limited, Main Branch, Chakwal where the bank account was being maintained concerning the subject-matter of the succession application was also impleaded in the original proceedings as respondent No.5. The bank on 2-5-2011 filed a reply to the said petition for obtaining succession certificate and particularly in reply to Para.2, the following was the stance taken:--- "In reply to Para.2 of the plaint, it is submitted that petition was moved to the Bank by Malik Khuda Baksh on 18-9-1988 whereby Mst. Nasim Begum was authorized to operate the account. She was mentioned as account-holder, signature Card was issued accordingly with instruction of "either of survivor". Hence she can operate the account as per bank rules after the death of Malik Khuda Bakhsh." However, through an undated application, which was received on record by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class by putting his initial and stamp and that too without date, the Bank sought the deletion of some portion of Para.2 as reproduced above and addition to the following effect:--- DELETION, which was inadvertently mentioned:--- Portion of 3rd, 4th and 5th line of para number 2, which is reproduced as: "She was mentioned as account-holder" "Hence she can operate the account as per Bank rules after the death of Malik Khuda Bakhsh." ADDITION: for elaboration: In the beginning of para number 2 That account number 22582 was opened on 24-10-1984 with status of single Malik Khuda Baksh. Title of account remained single from 1984 to till death of Malik Khuda Baksh on 8- 6-2011. Mst. Nasim Begum was not mentioned as account-holder. In the end of para number 

2:-- Validity of authority was ceased at death of Malik Khuda Baksh on 8-6-2011. The said application was allowed on 10-9-2011 by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class at Chakwal. Such order is impugned herein through the present revision petition. 2. I have gone through the application seeking amendment. The Bank has not mentioned any reason as to why a particular stance was taken in originally filed reply and why at a subsequent stage altogether different stance is attempted to be incorporated in place of the original one. I have specifically asked the learned counsel for the respondent/ bank as to whether any official/officer of the Bank has been held, responsible for placing wrong information, which was made basis of filing original reply and also to explain as to why and on the basis of what material the amendment was being sought, to which the learned counsel has replied that no one in the Bank has been proceeded against in this regard and responsibility has not been fixed for such alleged lapse. 

 3. Although the courts are supposed to be liberal in granting amendments in the pleadings but the liberty is not to be stretched to such extent that the parties are allowed to adopt a complete U-turn from what has been originally pleaded in their pleadings, particularly, in absence of any justifiable reason for getting the original pleadings amended. No amendment prejudicial to the interest of a party, who by means ofthe original pleadings, has accrued some rights, can be allowed under the law and a party to the proceedings once taken a particular stand is estopped to effect a change in the same and admissions made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be retracted subsequently. 

 4. The learned counsel for the respondent/Bank has also objected to the maintainability of the revision petition. The proceedings under the Succession Act even if being carried out by a Civil Court are always deemed to be the proceedings before the District Judge and the right of appeal is available under section 384 (1) of the Succession Act, 1925 only in cases of an order of District Judge granting, refusing or revoking a certificate whereas by virtue of section 383(3) a High Court is provided the right to entertain a revision from an order of District Judge other than mentioned in section 384(1), thus the revision is competent and even otherwise this Court has inherent powers to look into and call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies, if such subordinate Court appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or to have acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus exercise of revisional powers in this case is proper remedy against the order passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class on 10-9-2011.

 5. The learned trial Court while granting the application seeking amendment in the reply filed by the respondent/Bank has exercised its jurisdiction not vested under the law and the impugned order suffers from illegality and irregularity and is not sustainable, therefore, the same is set aside. The application moved by the respondent/ Bank seeking deletion or addition in the originality filed reply is dismissed. 

 6. Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed. KMZ/N-55/L 

Petition allowed.