1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2581/2011 (DEORAO DADAJI MUNE & OTHERS VERSUS SUDHA VASANTRAO PATNE & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M.A. Sable, counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 23 , 2011 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the trial Court permitting the defendants/ respondents to consequentially amend the written statement in view of the amendment to the plaint. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that a consequential amendment should be made only within a period of fourteen days after the amendment is carried out by the opposite party. According to the petitioners, the trial Court could not have permitted the consequential amendment since it was not sought to be made within a period of fourteen days. The petitioners, the original plaintiffs, amended the plaint with the permission of the Court. After the petitioners served a copy of the amended plaint on the respondents, the respondents filed an application for making a consequential amendment in the written statement. Though the said application was opposed by the petitioners, the trial Court by the impugned order allowed the application. 2 There is nothing wrong with the order passed by the trial Court allowing the respondents to consequentially amend the written statement. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners that in view of the provisions of Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a consequential amendment needs to be made within a period of fourteen days is not well founded as the provisions of Order 6 Rule 18 prescribe fourteen days time for carrying out the amendment from the date of an order for leave to amend. Hence, the provisions of Order 6 Rule 18 prescribe the period for carrying out the amendment on an order of the Court permitting an amendment. Moreover, even under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 18, the Court has the discretion to extend the time to carry out the amendment. The reliance on the provisions of Order 6 Rule 18 is clearly misplaced. The order passed by the trial Court is just and proper as it was necessary to grant permission to the defendants to amend the written statement in pursuance of the amendment to the plaint, so as to effectively decide the controversy between the parties. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE