JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a revision against he order dated September 30, 1975 passed by Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, confirming the order dated October 6, 1975 passed by S.D.O. Ghaziabad in a case No. 18 under Section 209 of U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act between Nanak Chand and Jaswant and others. 2. The material facts for the purpose of this revision are that Nanak Chand filed a suit under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in which by an order dated March 24, 1973 of the Judicial Officer Revenue, Meerut the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court. The plaintiff went upon in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, against the said order. He applied to the appellate court to make certain amendment in the plaint. His application was allowed on payment of Rs. 50/- as cost on August 17, 1974 and on the same day the appeal was also allowed and the case was remanded back to the trial court of fresh decision. After the record was received in the trial court the plaintiff applied on August 26, 1975 for incorporating amendment in the plaint. This application was rejected by trial court on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction to allow the amendment and that the plaintiff should seek the remedy before the Additional Commissioner. The plaintiff filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner against this order but it was also dismissed on the ground that the incorporation should have been made within 14 days from the date of the order. This revision has been preferred against he same order. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the opposite party and perused the impugned orders and the record. 4. It is apparent from the order of the Additional Commissioner dated August 17, 1974 that the application for amendment was allowed on the same date when the appeal was allowed and the suit was remanded back to the trial court. Consequently the record went up in transit and it was received back in the court of the trial court on November 7,1974. Consequently the record went up in transit and it was received back in the court of the trial court on November 7,1974. In such circumstances there was no opportunity for the plaintiff to have made the amendment of the plaint within 14 days as required by order 6 rule 18 C.P.C. After the receipt of the record a notice was issued to the parties and they appeared for the first time on December 10, 1974. There is no doubt that the plaintiff should have moved the court on the very first date of his appearance for incorporating the amendment in which he filed however even that date was later than a period of 14 days as prescribed by order 6 rule 18 C.P.C., hence it would have been justifiable if the court had extended the time beyond the prescribed period and had allowed the incorporation of the amendment. The amendment permitted by the Additional Commissioner was material to the ends of justice, hence it deserved to have been allowed and some cost could have been imposed again on the plaintiff for late incorporation nonetheless the application should not have been disallowed in the interest of justice. The order of the trial court was, therefore, not proper and it did not exercise it judicially. The learned Addl. Commissioner also filed in jurisdiction to examine the provisions of order 6 rule 18 C.P.C. properly because there was no bar for the extension of the time for the incorporation of the amendment beyond the prescribed period of 14 days. The learned Additional Commissioner also, therefore, failed to exercise his jurisdiction properly in extending the time, hence his order deserves to be incorporated in the plaint. 5. In view of the above discussion this revision is allowed and the orders passed by both the courts below are set aside and the amendment permitted by the Additional Commissioner by his order dated August 17, 1974 is permitted to be incorporated in the plaint. Let the record be sent back to the trial court for proceeding with it according to law.