The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time limit prescribed by Order VI Rule 18 of the Code for filing an amended plaint is not mandatory, and any objection raised after the acceptance of the amended plaint may not be valid.

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution prays for quashing orders dated 18-10-2004 and 26-5-2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Faridabad. According to the first order, the application filed by the defendant-petitioner for expunging the amended plaint from the original plaint and striking it off from the pleadings was dismissed, whereas by order dated 26-5-2004, the costs of Rs. 10,000.00 which was imposed by this Court vide order dated 22-4-2004 passed in Civil Revision No. 278 of 2004 was ordered to be deposited with the Legal Aid.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the defendant-petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. It was claimed that he was owner in possession of the suit property. The aforementioned suit has been contested by the defendant-petitioner. During the course of proceedings of the suit, the plaintiff-respondent 1 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code ) seeking amendment of the plaint to incorporate the plea that if she was not found in possession of the suit property, then in the alternative a decree for possession as a consequential relief be passed. She also sought an amendment in the valuation of the suit for the purpose of relief of possession. The suit was valued at Rs. 1,25,000.00 over which an ad valorem court fee of Rs. 9,370.00 has been paid. The learned trial Court dismissed the application of plaintiff-respondent 1 on 22-12-2003. The aforementioned order was set aside by this Court in C.R. No. 278 of 2004 titled as Smt. Santosh Kumari V/s. Balbir Singh and another decided on 22-4-2004. The operative part of the order reads as under :-

"In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision petition is allowed and the order dated December 22, 2003 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside subject to payment of Rs. 10,000.00 as costs. Consequently, the amendment application filed by the plaintiff is also allowed. The costs would be a condition precedent for permitting the plaintiff to file the amended plaint."

3. When the matter came up before the trial Court on 26-5-2004, an order was passed directing the deposit of costs of Rs. 10,000.00 with the Legal Aid. The aforementioned course appears to have been adopted because in its order dated 22-4-2004, this Court has not specified as to whom the costs were to be paid. Accordingly, the costs were deposited with the Legal Aid and the case was adjourned for filing amended plaint which was subsequently filed on 6-10-2004 and the case was fixed for filing the written statement.

4. The defendant-petitioner instead of filing the written statement, moved an application before the trial Court with a prayer that the averments made in the amended plaint be expunged and only the original averments could legally be kept in the plaint. The aforementioned prayer was based on the provisions of Order VI Rule 18 of the Code which provided that in the absence of any order to the contrary, the amended pleadings have to be filed by the party concerned within a period of 14 days from the date of passing of the order. However, the trial Court rejected the aforementioned plea of the defendant-petitioner by holding that the amended plaint was taken on record on 6-10-2004 and from 26-5-2004 to 6-10-2004, no objection was raised despite the fact that the period of 14 days had expired on 26-5-2004 by considering the order dated 22-4-2002 passed by this Court as the base (C.R. No. 278 of 2004). It was further observed that there was no objection raised with regard to payment of costs also.

5. Mr. R. K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the provisions of Order VI Rule 18 of the Code are mandatory and unless the amended plaint was filed within 14 days, the Court should not have accepted the same. According to the learned counsel, it is an obligation cast on the plaintiff-respondent to file a