Judgment :- The short question that arises in this second appeal in whether the appellate court can permit the plaintiff to carry out amendment of the plaint allowed by the trial court but the plaintiff had failed to amend the plaint after the order. 2. Appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S.70/ 78 before Munsiff s Court, Attingal. The suit was for declaration of title and possession and for an injunction restraining the defendants from entering the plaint schedule property. She claimed to be the owner in possession. Defendants resisted the claim and claimed to be in possession of the property. During the pendency of the suit plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint seeking recovery of possession on the strength of title and mesne profits. That petition LA. 332/79 was allowed by the court on 18-7-1979. But plaintiff failed to carry out the amendment in the plaint. The trial court on a consideration of the evidence adduced on both sides found plaintiff to be not in possession of the property at the time of suit and in consequence the suit was dismissed. The lower appellate court concurred with that decision and dismissed the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal an oral request was made by counsel for appellant to permit plaintiff to carry out the amendment in the plaint. 'This request was declined by the court. Hence the second appeal. 3. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law formulated in the appeal memorandum. i. Is not the lower appellate court empowered to extend the time to incorporate the amendment already allowed by the trial court? ii. Has not the courts below gone wrong in not deciding the rights of the parties on the basis of the evidence! let in when the parties are conscious of the matter in issue? iii. Is not the appellant entitled to recover the property on the basis of her mortgage right? Is not the appellant entitled to recover the property even though the prayer is the declaration of title and injunction? 4. Heard counsel on both sides. 5. The main aspect to be considered is whether the appellate court can permit plaintiff to carry out the amendment allowed by the trial court. Is not the appellant entitled to recover the property even though the prayer is the declaration of title and injunction? 4. Heard counsel on both sides. 5. The main aspect to be considered is whether the appellate court can permit plaintiff to carry out the amendment allowed by the trial court. Rule 18 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure directs a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend the plaint to carry out the amendment within the time stipulated by the court or within 14 days from the date of the order if no time is fixed. The rule mandates that the plaintiff shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of the time fixed by the court or 14 days as the case may be unless the time is extended by the court. Failure to amend within the time provided in rule 18 would therefore disentitle a party to amend his pleading afterwards unless the time is extended by the court. In case of failure to amend, the suit has to continue without the amendment. In the present case that is what the court has done. Though the amendment was allowed on 18-7-1979 the parties went to trial in December 1979 without the plaintiff carrying out the amendment in the plaint. No request is also seen made to the trial court for extension of time. The request for amendment and that too oral was made at the appellate stage. The appellate court rejected that request for the reason that no request for extension was made before the trial court and the request for extension cannot be entertained at the stage of appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellate court also is empowered to grant extension of time and permit plaintiff to carry out the amendment. 6. Relying on the provisions contained in S.107 of the Code it is the contention of appellant's counsel that the appellate court having been conferred with all the powers of the court of original jurisdiction in respect of suits the request for carrying out the amendment in the plaint should have been allowed by the lower appellate court. 6. Relying on the provisions contained in S.107 of the Code it is the contention of appellant's counsel that the appellate court having been conferred with all the powers of the court of original jurisdiction in respect of suits the request for carrying out the amendment in the plaint should have been allowed by the lower appellate court. It is true that the powers of an appellate court unless stated otherwise are co-extensive with those of original authorities and an appellate court can pass any order which the court of first instance could pass. It only means that an appellate court also can exercise the power conferred under Rule 17 of Order VI to allow any party to alter or amend his pleadings. The appellate court can also direct the trial court to allow amendment of the plaint. The question to be considered is whether 'court' mentioned in Rule 18 of Order VI includes appellate court also. 7. On a careful reading of Rule 18 it is clear beyond doubt that the order of extension can be granted only by the court which allowed the amendment. If the party who has obtained an order for leave to amend has failed to amend the plaint within the period stipulated by the Court or within 14 days from the date of the order as the case may be, he shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of that period. In other words, the right of the plaintiff to produce the amended plaint and to carry out the amendment in the original plaint is lost consequent to such failure. But the court is given the power to extend the time which can only be on the motion of the plaintiff. Under the rule the amendment has to be made within the time fixed or extended by the court which allowed the amendment. If the amendment is allowed by the trial court the request for extension has also to be. made to that court and that court alone has power to permit the plaintiff to carry out the amendment in the original plaint. In case the amendment is allowed by the appellate court the request has to be made to that court and not to the trial court. In short the word 'court' in Rule 18 of Order VI has to be understood in the context in which it is used. In case the amendment is allowed by the appellate court the request has to be made to that court and not to the trial court. In short the word 'court' in Rule 18 of Order VI has to be understood in the context in which it is used. In case the amendment is allowed by the trial court, the word 'court' in rule 18 means the trial court. If the amendment is allowed by the appellate court the word 'court' means the appellate court. Since the amendment in this case was allowed by the trial court the request for extension cannot be entertained by the lower appellate court. The request was rightly rejected by that court. 8. From the judgment of the appellate court it appears that no petition was presented by the appellant seeking extension of time whereas an oral request was made for that purpose. According to learned counsel for appellant, the request can also be oral. R.18 does not insist for an application to be filed setting-forth the reasons for not amending the plaint according to the order of the court. But in order to enable the court to ascertain whether there is satisfactory reason for not complying with the order of court a petition supported by an affidavit setting-forth the reasons for the failure is essential. The right to carry out the amendment is lost on the expiry of the period fixed by the court or 14 days as the case may be. When the right is lost by virtue of the rule the court can extend the period granted and permit the plaintiff to carry out amendment only for satisfactory reasons. In other words, extension of time way not be granted for the mere asking. This appears to be the intention for inserting the phrase "he shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such limited time as aforesaid or such 14 days as the case may be I am therefore of the view that the request for extension contemplated in Rule 18 of Order VI has to be made by a petition supported by an affidavit setting-forth the reasons for the failure to amend within the time fixed by the court or 14 days as the case may be. For the aforesaid reasons the second appeal is found to be devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed but without costs.