IN THE HIGH COURT OF JJDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7619 of 2006. Suresh Chand son of Shri Kedar Versus Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nagar, District Bharatpur & Others Date of Order :::: 30/07/2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. Sunil Samdaria, Advocate for Mr. Satish Khandal, Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Azad Ahmed, Counsel for the Respondents
Per Court :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner, who is the plaintiff, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 11.09.2006 by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 148, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for extension of time for depositing the costs and filing the amended plaint within the time allowed by the Court vide order dated 22.07.2006 has been rejected.
Relevant facts for the purpose of this writ petition are that vide order dated 22.07.2006 the application submitted by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of the plaint was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/-. It was also directed that the costs was to be paid on the next date and the amended plaint was also required to be filed on the same date within 14-days. Admittedly, the plaintiff failed to comply with the aforesaid directions.
The plaintiff, therefore, moved an application, though the date for the same is not available on record, stating therein that he fell ill and could not comply with the aforesaid directions. The said application has been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 11.09.2006.
This Court without going into the merits of the submissions, suffice it to say that the provisions of the Code are for enabling and assisting the Court in advancement of justice and in the facts and circumstances of the present case on the ground of illness when the plaintiff has moved the application for extension of time to file the amended plaint and to deposit the costs of Rs.1000/-, there was no material to counter the aforesaid plea of the plaintiff that he was not well and, therefore, could not comply with the directions in time.
In that view of the matter, the learned trial Court would have done well by allowing the said application and thereby enabling the suit to proceed rather than rejecting the same and three valuable years have since been lost on account of the stay of the proceedings by this Court in this writ petition filed against the impugned order rejecting the prayer for extension of time.
In the facts and circumstance of the case, I am inclined to allow this writ petition and permit the plaintiff-petitioner to file the amended plaint, if not already filed on the next date, along with the costs of Rs.1000/-, which has been imposed by the learned Court below. No further time would be allowed to the plaintiff.
With the above, directions the writ petition stands allowed, the impugned order dated 11.09.2006 (Annexure-3) is set aside.
(Dalip Singh) J.
ashok/