Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 37 of 1957, decided on 14th November 1957, against the interim order of the Sub‑Judge, Muzaffarabad dated 24th June 1957.

, O. VI, r. 18 Order to implead party‑Amendment of pleading‑Time may be extended by Court for filing amended pleading.

, O. VI. r. IS "Court" includes Court to which case is transferred.

The term "the Court" used in rule 18 cannot be said to exclude the Court to which the case is transferred.

‑Allowed on amendment of plaint‑Costs accepted by defendant‑Acceptance does not waive defendant's right to object in time to extension of time under O. VI, r. 18, Civil Procedure Code (IJ of 1908).

By accepting the costs allowed to the defendant on the amendment of plaint, he does not waive his right to question the authority of the Court in extending time but if he does not. object in time, the delay in the matter would go against him.

Muhammad Sharif for Petitioner.

Nazir Ahmad Khan for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 29th October 1957.

---‑ This is a revision petition against the order of Sub‑Judge, Muzaffarabad dated the 24th June 1957, whereby it was held that the amended suit was not time barred. In this case, the suit had once been dismissed by the Sub‑Judge on the 24th December 1955. On appeal, the learned District Judge by order dated the 5th January 1957, remanded the case with the direction that the suit be amended and Muhammad Roshar should be impleaded as defendant in the case on payment of Rs. 25 as costs. No time had been fixed for amendment. The plaintiff presented the amended plaint in the Court of Sub‑Judge on the 9th April 1957. An objection was raised by the defendants that according to Order VI, rule 18, Civil P. C., amended plaint should have been filed in the Court within 14 days of the order and as it was not done, the amendment should not have been allowed.

The learned Sub‑Judge over‑ruled this objection and one of the reasons for over‑ruling the objection of the defendant petitioners was that they had accepted the costs in the case and had thus waived their right to object. Another reason advanced by the Sub‑Judge was that the Court was competent to extend the time.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued firstly that the amendment of the plaint was ordered by the District judge and it was only he who was competent to extend time, secondly that as no time limit had been fixed by the District Judge while ordering amendment of the plaint, the question of extending time did not arise and thirdly that by accepting costs the right of objection had not been waived by the petitioners (defendants).

As regards the first point, it is to be seen as to who ordered the amendment, the District judge or Sub‑Judge and what is the nature of amendment. The actual words in the judgment of District judge are "the record of the case is sent back to the lower Court for fresh enquiry from the very beginning with the direction that the plaintiff may be ordered to amend the plaint and implead Muhammad Roshar, as defendant and then decide the case (after the amendment) according to law, the plaintiff shall have to pay Rs. 25 as costs."

From the above it is clear that the amendment was ordered by the Sub‑Judge under the direction of the District judge and that the amendment was the impleadment of Muhammad Roshan as defendant. Such an amendment would fall under Order I rule 10 sub‑rule 2 and Order VI, rule 18 shall have no application to it but if for the sake of argument, it is stated that because of impleadment of Muhammad Roshan as defendant some addition had to be made in the body of the plaint and the case fell under Order VI, rule 17 even then the Sub‑Judge could have extended time under Rule 18 or Order VI, Civil P. C., because the amendment was in fact ordered by him, On the other hand, if it is said that the amendment was ordered by the Appellate Court, the District Judge, even then the Sub‑Judge could extend time under Rule 18 for the reasons that the District judge simply ordered amendment leaving the rest of the task to the Sub‑Judge to perform. The Sub‑Judge thus stepped into the place of District Judge for all indents and purposes and is covered by the term "Court" used in the Rule and could, therefore, extend time. The term "the Court" used in Rule 18 cannot be said to exclude the Court to which the case is transferred. If it were so interpreted, then the Court to which a case was transferred would not be competent to extend time under Rule 18, if the amendment was ordered by the Court from which the case was transferred. I am, therefore, of the view that the Sub‑Judge could extend time even if Rule 18 of Order VI, Civil P. C. was applicable to this case.

The second point raised by the Counsel for the petitioner is also devoid of force. Even if no time limit was fixed, the Court could extend the period of 14 days fixed under the l rule.

As regards the third point, I agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that by accepting the cost allowed to him on the amendment of plaint, he did not waive his right to question the authority of the Court in extending time but if he did not object in time, the delay in the matter would go against him. In this case he objected to the extension of time by the lower Court after more than a month and a half of the presentation of the amended plaint. This I should say was too late on his part.

I, therefore, do not for the reasons stated above, see any reason to upset the findings of the Court below. The revision petition is dismissed with costs.

K. M. A. Revision dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.