(1) WP. 2792.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2792 OF 2010 Rajdhar S/o Manikrao Raut .. Petitioner VERSUS Dattu S/o Shankar Sapkal and others .. Respondents Mr. P.F. Patni, Advocate for the Petitioner None present for the respondents though served ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 10TH JUNE, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] By this Petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 16.2.2010 whereby he was denied leave to carry out the amendment, which was allowed. 2] The petitioner is original plaintiff. He sought amendment of the pleadings by filing application (exhibit 58). The application was allowed on 18.1.2010. He was directed to carry out the amendment on or before 21.1.2010. He asserted that he could not carry out amendment inadvertently within the stipulated period and therefore, by his application (exhibit 77) dated 16.2.2010 he sought permission to carry out the amendment. The trial (2) WP. 2792.2010 Court rejected his application on the ground of delay. 3] Having heard learned counsel Mr. Patni and on consideration of the impugned order, it is more than clear that the impugned order is arbitrary and un-sustainable. The delay was only of few days. Precisely the delay was of 26 days. The petitioner explained the reason for the delay. The Court has ample power under section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure to extend the period which is stipulated under the orders of the Court. The Court may not be empowered to extend the limitation period if it is stipulated by agreement of the parties. In the present case, the Court itself had granted time upto 21.1.2010 and therefore, the same could be extended if good reason was shown. It appears that there was no much delay caused by the petitioner and that denial to carry out the amendment was improper. Needless to say the impugned order is quite improper and un-sustainable. 4] In the result, the Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. No costs. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp