Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2). This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.09.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Jodhpur City, Jodhpur City, Jodhpur in Civil Suit No. 73/96 Bharat Singh vs. Mohd. Yousuf. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 18 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3). It appears that the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint. The application filed by the plaintiff was allowed by the order dated 17.03.1998 subject to payment of costs to the tune of Rs.150/- payable to the defendant. By the same order, it was directed that the amended plaint should be filed within a period of 14 days. The court, however, adjourned the case to 02.04.1998. The amended plaint was not filed within the period of 14 days allowed by the order dated 17.03.1998. The amended plaint was filed on 02.04.1998 which was the date fixed for hearing by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) in his order. On 02.04.1998 when the amended plaint was filed, no objection was raised by the defendant against the filing of the amended plaint as observed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) in his order. About 17 days after the filing of the amended plaint, the petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the plaintiff should not be permitted to amend the plaint as the amended plaint has not been filed within a period of 14 days fixed by the order dated 17.03.1998. The learned Civil Judge (J.D.) rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure on two grounds. The first was that no objection was raised by the defendant on 02.04.1998 when the amended plaint was filed. The second ground was that the Court itself had fixed 02.04.1998 for filing of the amended plaint. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 25.09.1998, the defendant-petitioner has approached this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(4). The learned counsel has submitted that when the trial court had granted 14 days time to the plaintiff to file the amended plaint, it was necessary for the plaintiff to have filed the amended plaint within the period of 14 days notwithstanding that the date of hearing fixed by the Court was 02.04.1998 and since that has not been done, the provisions of Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable and the plaintiffs application for amendment of the plaint deserves to be rejected for non-compliance of the order dated 17.03.1998. It is further submitted by him that when the trial Court had itself granted 14 days time to the plaintiff to amend the plaint, the view taken by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) that 02.04.1998 was fixed for filing of amended plaint is not correct. It is also submitted by him that the plaintiff did not file any application under Section 148 or Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to extend the time granted for filing of amended plaint and, therefore, the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) could not have extended the time for filing of the amended plaint to 02.04.1998. In support of these contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Bool Chand vs. Ayodhya Lal (1). I have gone through the decision given by the learned Single Judge. At page 473 of the Law Weekly, the learned Single Judge has observed:-

``In my opinion, the Acts and Rules of procedure regulating their conduct are intended for the broad purpose of facilitating justice and not for impending it. If there is any technical defect, it should be rectified by the Court under Section 148 or 151 of the Code of Civil

Procedure. Sec.148 CPC empowers the Court to enlarge the period even if the period originally fixed might have expired. I feel that omission and lapse arising out of non-complian

Click Here to Read the rest of this document