Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 1383
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Sultan Tanvir Ahmad)
Parties: AHMAD NAWAZ vs M/S NASIR SOLVENT ETC
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Sultan Tanvir Ahmad), officially reported as 2026 LHC 1383. In this matter between AHMAD NAWAZ and M/S NASIR SOLVENT ETC, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Sultan Tanvir Ahmad) DECISION DATE: 09-02-2026 TAGLINE: 1. Order-VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure-1908. 2. Amendment in factual assertions when sought after considerable delay. CASE DETAILS: Writ Petition-Civil Proceedings-Temporary Injunction 13887-25 ============================================================ Form No:HCJD/C-121 ORDER SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Case No: Writ Petition No. 13887 of 2025 Ahmad Nawaz Malik Vs Addl. District Judge and 09 others S.No. of order/ proceeding Date of order/ Proceeding Order with signature of Judge, and that of parties or counsel, where necessary 19.01.2026 Malik Javed Akhtar Wains and Ms. Aqsa Zahid , learned Advocates for the petitioner.
This petition is directed against decisions of the learned tw o Courts refusing to allow application dated 07.06.2023 (the ‘ application’) filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure-1908 (the ‘Code’). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the proposed amendment will not change th e nature and complexion of the suit, therefore, non-acceptance of the application is against the settled principles of law. 3. I have heard the learned counsel f or the petitioner and gone through the record with their able assistance. 4. The revision -petitioner filed suit dated 28.01.2012 titled “ Ahmad Nawaz versus Muhammad Ashfaq and others ” (the ‘suit’), claiming that lease agreement dated 05.03.2007 (the ‘agreement’) with respondents No. 5 to 10 , executed by respondent No. 3 (Muhammad Ashfaq) , is without authority of the revision-petitioner. It is averred that property as detailed in the suit (the ‘suit property’) is owned by the revision -petitioner, Muhammad Ashfaq and Karim Nawaz (three brothers) in equal shares. After about eleven (11) years of t he suit, through the application amendment is sought , essentially to the effect that Muhammad Ashfaq is benamidar to the extent of 1/3 share in the suit property. 5. Fundamental principle of ‘ benami transaction’ is that on the basis of confidence upon a party, transaction was recorded in the papers in his favour on behalf of another, who is the real owner / transferee 1. Such claims require determination
1 Ahmad Yar and 6 others versus Ghulam Rasool and others (2016 CLC Note 42)
Writ Petition No. 13887-2025 2
keeping in view the ingredients of benami transaction and principle already well settled. 6. Undeniably, the suit is for declaration that the agreement is illegal , being executed without lawful authority and the revision-petitioner is also entitled to mesne profits to the extent of his share. It is specifically pleaded in Paragraph No. 2 of the suit that the three brothers are entitled to equal benefits from the suit property, which is jointly owned by them. The sought amendment not merely results into resiling from the claim originally set -up in the suit but at the same time it will essentially change the nature of the suit. 7. It is settled that amendment should not be allowed where it alters the landscape of litigation leading to injustice, disadvantage and injury to the other -side of the litigation 2. Recently, the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Arif Tarar case3 dealt with a situation where a litigant sought amendment in factual assertions, after ten (10) years. It is ruled in the said case that delay, though not conclusive, becomes a critical component when the same is without adequate explanation. 8. The learne d counsel for the petitioner have also failed to give any explanation for extraordinary delay in seeking amendment, which even otherwise amounts to changing the very standpoint in the suit. The petition, therefore, is dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs. (Sultan Tanvir Ahmad) Judge Approved for reporting Announced in open Court on 09.02.2026.
Iq b a l* Judge
2 Secretary to Government (West Pakistan) Now N.W.F.P. Department of Agriculture and Forests, Peshawar and 4 others versus Kazi Abdul Kafil (PLD 1978 Supreme Court 242) 3 Muhammad Arif Tarar and another versus Matloob Ahmad Warraich and others (PLD 2025 Supreme Court 691)