IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1605 of 2006 JAGDISH CHAUDHARY & ORS Versus RAMAWATI DEVI & ORS ----------- 3 13.01.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners. While it is true that an embargo under Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 148 thereof was definitely against the petitioners in allowing his prayer for extension of time for carrying out the amendment already allowed in the plaint by order dated 12.6.2004 but then taking into account the explanation given by the petitioner the court below was not precluded from passing an order for directing the said amendment to be incorporated in the plaint. Unfortunately, the court below has not considered the ground seeking extension of time and has proceeded on an assumption that since the amendment had to be carried out within a period of 14 days in terms of Order VI Rule 18 of the C.P.C. and such period of time could be extended only by a period of 30 days in view of the Section 148 of the C.P.C., the Court had no power to allow the amendment to be incorporated. Such mechanical approach of the court below would in a given case can lead to complete injustice. For example on account of death of the counsel for the plaintiff in whose favour amendment was allowed if such amendment could not be incorporated in the plaint within a period of 14 days and thereafter the plaintiff having remained under impression that his amendment in fact stood allowed did not/could not take any action but subsequently on - 2 - discovery by the next lawyer, it transpired to the plaintiff that such amendment though allowed in the plaint was not incorporated by his earlier lawyer, can it still be said that court would have no power to allow such amendment to be incorporated in the plaint ? It is here and in fact in this situation that the court below will have to take aid of Section 151 of the C.P.C. and taking into consideration the expression “extended”, to its intent and purpose, it can definitely extend time even beyond a period of 14 days plus 30 days in terms of Order VI Rule 18 read with Section 148 of the C.P.C. respectively. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that the amendment in the plaint after its being allowed has to be incorporated by the lawyer of the plaintiff and not by the plaintiff himself and in that view of the matter for such mistake or omission or negligence on the part of the counsel, the plaintiff cannot be made to suffer. That being so, this Court is satisfied that the court below has committed a jurisdictional error in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners without considering the circumstances mentioned in the application of the petitioner dated 15.5.2006. Thus the impugned order is set aside and the Court below is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner and pass a fresh order thereon after giving opportunity of hearing to the counsel for both the parties. With the aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision application is disposed of . Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) - 3 -