( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed by the original plaintiff under Sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court Ahmedabad below application Ex. 40 in Summary Civil Suit No. 5879. of 1971 dated 30-8-1974.

( 2 ) FACTS leading rise to this revision petition briefly stated are as under:-PLAINTIFF had filed the aforesaid suit against the opponent-defendant for recovery of Rs. 1 120 the rent due as the opponents had vacated the suit premises in the middle of the month. During the pendency of the suit plaintiff received a bill for education cess. He therefore by application Ex. 7 sought for amendment of plaint for including claim in respect of that education cess. Both the parties were unaware about the order passed on that application Ex. 7 date 11-6-1972 regarding the grant of the amendment sought for. According to the plaintiff he did not know about the aforesaid order passed on Ex. 7. On 18-7-1974 as per the order passed by the trial Court amendment was made. Exhibit 38 was given by the opponents-defendants to cancel that amendment made in the plaint as such amendment was not carried out as per the order within 14 days from the date of the earlier order passed by the Court and that prayer of the defendant was granted by an order date 6-8-1974 The plaintiff therefore filed the present application Ex. 40 stating that the Court had jurisdiction to extend such time in view of the aforesaid circumstances disclosed and he be allowed to amend the plaint as per the order passed below Ex. 7 on 19th June 1972 This application was opposed by the defendants-opponents. The Court dismissed this application with costs on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to extend such time and permit the plaintiff to allow him to amend the plaint as per the order passed below Ex. 7. as this was not a case where the Court in its order had fixed time or granted time for making such amendment in the plaint. It was a case where the period of 14 days is fixed by law. In such cases the Court had no jurisdiction to extend time.

( 3 ) A short question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the aforesaid view taken by the trial Court is justified in law in view of the provisions of Order 6 rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code (which will be hereinafter referred to as the Code ). That rule reads:-IF a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend accordingly within the time limited for that purpose by the order or is no time is thereby limited then within fourteen days from the date of the order he shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such limited time as aforesaid or of such fourteen days as the case may be unless the time is extended by the Court. A plain reading of this rule in my opinion leaves no doubt that this rule contemplated two categories of cases. One category of cases was a category of cases where a party obtaining an order for leave to amend did not amend accordingly within the time limited for that purpose by the order. It will mean a category of cases where the Court had fixed or granted time to amend the pleading and the party who obtained such an order for leave to amend did not amend it within the period so granted or fixed by the Court. It also contemplated a category of cases where no time was limited. Then the statute fixed that time be stating that in such cases where no time is limited then a party obtaining such leave to amend has to amend within fourteen days from the date of the order. Thereafter a party who does not act accordingly embargo is placed and that embargo is that such a party will not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such limited time as aforesaid or of such fourteen days as the case may be unless the time is extended by the Court. It is thus evident that in both the categories of cases viz. where a party has not amended within the time granted by the Court in t