IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.605 of 2009 RABI SHANKAR SINGH, SON OF NANAK SHARAN SINGH DECEASED, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GODARGAMA, P.O. RAMPUR, P.S. MATIHANI, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI….… PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER Versus 1. RAM SOBHA DEVI,WIFE OF LATE NANAK SHARAN SINGH 2. KABITA DEVI ALIAS RABITA DEVI, WIFE OF JAI SHANKAR SINGH DECEASED 3. CHIRAG KUMAR SINGH, MINOR, SON OF JAI SHANKAR PD. SINGH, UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS MOTHER KABITA DEVI ALIAS RABITA DEVI, MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE GODERGAMA, P.O. RAMPUR, P.S. MATIHANI, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI 4. CHUNMUN DEVI, WIFE OF SRI BIMAL KISHROE PD. SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA LOHIYANAAR, P.O. BEGUSARAI, P.S. SADAR, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI 5. GEETA DEVI, WIFE OF SRI PANKAJ KUMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PATELIA, P.S. BIBHUTIPUR, P.O. ROSERA, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR 6. GAURI DEVI, WIFE OF BINAY KUMAR PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAKHRI (DHOLI), P.O. AND P.S. DHOLI, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR…. DEFENDANTS-OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 2. 17.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff has filed this civil revision application against the order dated 18.2.2009 passed by learned Subordinate Judge, Ist, Begusarai in Title Suit No.267 of 2006 by which the learned court below has rejected the application of the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 18 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for extending the time for incorporating the amendment, already allowed, in the original 2 plaint. From the impugned order, it appears that the amendment petition of the plaintiff was allowed by the court below on 16.5.2008. However, by mistake the amendment was not incorporated in the original plaint within the time stipulated under Order 6 Rule 18 of the C.P.C. Therefore, the petition was filed on 27.8.2008 for extending the time and permitting the plaintiff to incorporate the amendment made in the plaint. Learned court below has rejected the said petition on the ground that the plaintiff had not filed any petition under Section 148 of the C.P.C. which gives general power to the court to extend the time granted by it. From reading of Section 148 of the C.P.C. it appears that there is a general provision granting the court power to extend time granted or fixed by a court for doing any act prescribed or allowed by the Code. From bare reading of the section it appears that this section covers only cases in which a court has fixed or granted time for doing any act prescribed or allowed by this Code. On the other hand, time for incorporating an amendment in the plaint has been prescribed by the Civil Procedure Code itself. In Rule 18 of Order 3 6, the Code prescribes that any amendment allowed by the court has to be incorporated in the pleadings within the time limit fixed by the court for the purpose or if no time is fixed then it should be made within 14 days from the date of the order. The rule also provides that thereafter the parties shall not be permitted to incorporate the amendment unless the time is extended by the court. In this case while allowing the amendment, the court had not fixed any time limit for incorporating the amendment in the plaint. Therefore, the time limit of 14 days prescribed in Rule 18 of Order 6 of the Code shall apply. The said rule also prescribes for extension of period. Therefore, the petition of the plaintiff was rightly filed under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 18 of the C.P.C. In addition to that, the petitioner had added Section 151 of the C.P.C. in the petition. Therefore, the said petition of the plaintiff was maintainable and was fit to be considered on its own merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once an amendment has been allowed by the court, delay in incorporation of the same in the pleadings should be generally condoned and the 4 court should take liberal approach in the matter. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1984 Patna 251 (Jainul Abedin Versus Bibi Nisha Khatoon). The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct. From the impugned order itself it appears that the defendants have not yet appeared in the suit, therefore, no prejudice would be caused in incorporation of the said amendment, already allowed by the court, in the original plaint. In the circumstances, this civil revision application is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.2.2009 is set aside. The petition of the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 18 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. filed in the court below is also allowed and the plaintiff is permitted to incorporate the amendment in the original plaint. B.T. (J. N. Singh, J.)