IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1145 of 2008 MAHANTH SAH Versus KRISHNA MURARI BHARTIA & ANR ----------- 2 8.8.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 17.5.2008 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to extend the time limit for making necessary correction in the plaint in spite of an amendment which had already been allowed on 10.11.2006, seems to be a hyper technical approach inasmuch as it has been mentioned that the lawyer on record who could have made such correction had suffered from serious paralytic stroke and was bedridden for a long period of nearly one year. The whole construction of Order VI Rule 18 is dependant on the last clause “unless the time is extended by the Court” and therefore where an application was filed before the Court below, it ought to have gone into the merits of such application instead of indulging into the legal jugglery as to whether Order VI Rule 18 is mandatory or directory in nature. Here was a case when the lawyer was ill and that too he had suffered from paralytic strike, therefore, even if the amendment was allowed, the 2 plaintiff himself could not have made correction in the plaint. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Court below is set aside. The plaintiff, petitioner however must get the necessary correction made in the plaint within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This Civil Revision application is accordingly allowed in the aforementioned terms. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)