ORDER
1. The facts of the case in the nutshell are that by order dated 7-1-1994, the learned Trial Court had allowed the plaintiff’s application for amendment of the plaint from which Revision Petition No. 1590 of 1994 now listed along with had been filed. The Trial Court had granted time till 15-1-1994 to incorporate the amendment within specified period. According to the applicant, he could not carry put the amendment on or before 15-1-1994 and so he applied for time for incorporating the amendment to be extended. This application was made on 22-1-1994. It may be mentioned here that revision filed by the defendant namely Civil Revision Petition No. 1590 of 1994 has been dismissed by this Court today i.e. 15-6-1998, Manjunath Gopalkrishna Bhat v Ganapati Gopalkrishna
Bhat. The Trial Court rejected the permission to extend the time opining that by virtue of provisions of Order 6, Rule 18, it is provided that when a party had obtained an order for leave to amend, but does not amend accordingly within the time limited for that purpose, he shall not be permitted to amend after expiration of such limited time. Therefore, the Trial Court observed that the plaintiff has lost his opportunity which was given to him by this Court by its order dated 7-1-1994. It is on this ground, the Court has viewed that it cannot be permitted to carry out the same under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code. Learned Counsel for the applicant feeling aggrieved from the order impugned has filed this Revision No. 788 of 1994.
2. Learned Counsel contended that on the basis of misinterpretation of Order 6, Rule 18 and Section 151, the learned Court below illegally refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it to allow time to incorporate the amendment as had been ordered in order dated 7-1-1994. Learned Counsel for the revisionist-applicant further contended that even Section 148 of Civil Procedure Code provides that even after the expiry of period for doing certain things, it is within the power of the Court to extend the time and to allow the party time to do it accordingly. Learned Counsel contended that rules of procedure are meant to substantiate and subserve the course of justice. Learned Counsel contended that this is a case of illegal refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested.
3. This contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant has been hotly contested by Sri R.G. Hegde, learned Counsel for the respondent. Learned Counsel contended that it was not within the power of the Court to allow time to incorporate amendment. That revision is not maintainable. Learned Counsel contended that when the revisionist-applicant did not carry out amendment within the time prescribed, he could not be permitted to do so. Learned Counsel made a reference to a case of Keshardeo Chamria v Radha Kissen Chamria and Others , and contended that orders passed under Section 151 are neither appealable nor revisable.
4. I have applied my mind to the contentions advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties. Order passed under Section 151 may not be appealable, as has been observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, as it is not included in the category of appealable orders. Section 115 provides that a person aggrieved from an order amounting to case decided, if no such appeal lies to the High Court and the subordinate Court appears to have committed jurisdictional error, the High Court may call for the records. So order, if not appealable, which is passed by the Civil Court and in illegal or in irregular manner, it is open to challenge by revision. Revisional jurisdiction conferred is confined to this Court’s power to examine whether order passed by the Court deciding the case is the result of illegal usurpation of jurisdiction not vested or illegal refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested or Courts’ acting illegally or
with material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction. In the present case, it has been urged that the Court below has refused to exercise jurisdiction by taking the view that Order 6, Rule 18 mandates that no amendment should be allowed after the expiry of time granted. The question is whether the Court has illegally refused to exercise power vested in it by Sections 148 and 151 of Civil Procedure Code and if this Court comes to the conclusion that the Court has illegally refused to exercise its jurisdiction, it may be said that a case for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. So the case of Keshardeo Ghamria, supra, really cannot be said to be of much assistance to the respondent’s Counsel. The observations in Paragraph 21 and earlier part thereof clearly reveals that where a jurisdictional error is committed in passing the order by the Court below either by way of usurpation of jurisdiction not vested or illegal refusal to exercise jurisdiction, vested or if there is any material irregularity and illegality caused to the party by the order of the Court below, then this Court can have access to record so as to examine whether the Court below has illegally refused to allow the present applicant to incorporate the amendment after expiry of 14 days period or after the prescribed time and if there is such an error, this Court can interfere with that order. It has to be taken note of that rules of proceedings are meant to substantiate and subserve the cause of justice and the technicalities are not to be allowed to hamper the course of justice. The motto of the Constitution is to ensure justice to the people. Order 6, Rule 18, a reference to which has been made by the learned Trial Court reads as under:
“Rule 18. Failure to amend after order.– If a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend accordingly within the time limited for that purpose by the order, or if no time is thereby limited then within 14 days from the date of the order, he shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such limited time as aforesaid or of such 14 days, as the case may be, unless the time is extended by the Court”.
A reading of this provision per se reveals that once an order for leave to amend has been granted and time for that purpose has been granted, unless time is extended by the Court, the amendment shall not be allowed to be incorporated, if the party fails to incorporate amendment within the time granted or prescribed for the purpose. This rule does not curtail the power of the Court to extend time prescribed or granted to incorporate amendment. The only purport of the Rule 18 appears to be that the office will not permit the amendment to be incorporated in pleading after the expiry of time granted or prescribed therefor without and in the absence of an order of the Court extending the time for carrying out of amendment allowed. Thus so far as Court itself is concerned, its power to extend the time to incorporate the amendment as per Sections 148 and 151 of the Code exist and are, not curtailed by Rule 18 of Order 6. This is very much clear from Rule 18 itself particularly by use of expression, “unless the time is extended by the Court”. It means that the power of the Court to extend time has been kept intact and safe. Had this expression “unless the time is extended by the Court” had not been there, this rule might have gone in conflict with the provisions of
Section 148, Civil Procedure Code. Section 148, Civil Procedure Code reads as under:
“148. Enlargement of time.–Where any period is fixed or granted by the Court for doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Code, the Court may, in its discretion, from time to time, enlarge such period, even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired”.
The language used in Section 148 per se reveals that if the time originally fixed or granted for doing of certain thing has expired, even then the Court has got the power to extend the time for thing to be done after the expiry of the time. When I so opine, I find support for my view from the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v T. Thulasingam and Others.
5. This being the position, in my opinion, the Trial Court erred in law in taking the view that in view of Order 6, Rule 18, incorporation of amendment could not be allowed. Section 151 per se states and provides as under:
“Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court”.
Section 151 by itself is clear, that if any order is required to be made in the interest of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, the Court has got inherent power to do so and nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders. The amendment has been allowed and time has been granted for that purpose. Learned Counsel for the applicant (revisionist) could not incorporate the amendment as ordered on 7-1-1994. Any way, two weeks passed and on 22-1-1994, he sought the permission to incorporate the amendment as ordered on 7-1-1994. I may mention here that the revision from that order allowing amendment application has already been dismissed today vide Civil Revision Petition No. 1590 of 1994. When the party approached the Trial Court with a request that he may be allowed further time to incorporate the amendment, the Trial Court should have allowed the amendment in the interest of justice, otherwise purpose of allowing amendment will be frustrated and it will result in multiplicity of proceedings. Rule 18 of Order 6 also indicates the power of the Court to extend the time. I am surprised how the Trial Court has viewed that the Court has no power in view of Rule 18 and it appears it did not apply its mind to the provisions of Sections 148 and 151 also and failed to take note of the expression “unless the time is extended by the Court” used in Rule 18 of Order 6 and thereby on the basis of misinterpretation of these provisions
illegally refused to allow time to incorporate amendment which amendment has already been allowed. So this is a case in which the Court has illegally refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under Order 6, Rule 18 and Sections 148 and 151, Civil Procedure Code. If incorporation of amendment is not allowed, injury or injustice will be done to the party. So this is a fit case for interference and to allow the revision. This Revision No. 788 of 1994 is hereby allowed on payment of Rs. 150/- as cost. Let the amendment be incorporated by the plaintiff-applicant as ordered on 7-1-1994 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the Trial Court and its communication in every case to the plaintiff by the Court or within one month plaintiff getting the order whichever is later.