1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8213 OF 2009 Sau.Mandabai Mathu Bangar Petitioner versus Smt.Laxmibai Maruti Bangar and others Respondents S.R.Page for petitioner. S.P.Kadam for respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 25th March 2010 PC :- 1. On 29th September 2009 notice for final disposal was issued. The petitioner in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the plaintiff who filed a suit for perpetual injunction. An application for amendment of the plaint at Exhibit-31 was made by the petitioner. That application was allowed on 18th March 2003 subject to payment of costs of Rs.300/- by the petitioner to the respondents. The said order was not complied with by the petitioner. An application at Exhibit-35 was made by the petitioner praying that the petitioner may be permitted to pay the costs. A reference was made in the said application to order dated 10th October 2007 by which the Trial Court 2 took note of the fact that as the amount of costs was not paid, the application for amendment stands rejected. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the averments made in the application. He pointed out that the reasons were assigned for delay. He pointed out that according to the case of the petitioner, her husband was injured at the hands of first to fourth respondents and an offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered. He submitted that even after amendment to Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court was not powerless to extend the time. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition. He pointed out that the incident complained of in the FIR is of 3rd April 2006. He submitted that the only ground pleaded in the application is false and, therefore, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for extension of time. 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. As far as extension of time is concerned, law has been laid down by the Apex Court in case of Sureshchandra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ([2005]6- SCC-244). The Apex Court considered the amended section 148 of the said Code and held that where sufficient cause exists and events 3 are beyond the control of the party, the court will have inherent power to extend the time even beyond a period of thirty days. 4. The application at Exhibit-31 for amendment of the plaint was filed on 10th October 2007. It was allowed by consent of the parties on 18th March 2008 subject to payment of costs of Rs.300/-. The said amount was not deposited by the petitioner. The amendment was for incorporating a prayer for removal of encroachment in the suit filed by the petitioner. It is alleged in the application for amendment that after institution of the suit, the respondents-defendants have allegedly encroached upon a part of the suit property. the application at Exhibit-35 for extension of time was made on 26th August 2008. Even if said application for amendment would have been considered by the Court on the date on which application at Exhibit-35 was made, the Court could have permitted the amendment to be carried out as the suit was of the year 2006. In the circumstances, although period of thirty days had expired, this was a case where the Trial Court could have exercised inherent power under section 151 of the said Code. It is true that explanation for delay is not all that satisfactory. Therefore, the petitioner will have to pay substantial amount by way of costs. In terms of order of this Court, a sum of Rs.5,000/- has already been deposited by the petitioner. 4 5. Hence, I pass following order :- A) The impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside; B) Application at Exhibit-35 is allowed; C) It will be open for the respondents to withdraw the amount of Rs.5,000/- deposited by the petitioner in this Court; D) In view of deposit of amount of Rs.5,000/- in this court, the order passed below Exhibit-31 stands complied with. The petitioner will carry out the amendment to the plaint within two weeks from the date on which writ of this order is received by the Trial court. It will be open for the respondents to file their additional written statement within a period of eight weeks from the date on which the amendment is carried out; E) Hearing of the suit is expedited and the Trial Court will endeavour to conclude the hearing of the suit before the end of 2010; F) It is clarified that the second respondent will be permitted to withdraw the amount on behalf of other three respondents. (A.S.OKA, J.)