Order P. K. Deb, J. - This appeal has been preferred against the concurrent findings of both the courts belows. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed Title Suit No. 60 of 1976 for getting declaration of her share in the suit property and for partitioning the same. During the course of proceeding of the suit, an amendment petition was filed by the plaintiff which objected to regarding some factum of her title over the suit property. The said amendment was allowed after hearing both the parties, but it appears that after the amendment was allowed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. the same amendment had not been incorporated in the plaint within the time specified under Order 6 Rule 18 of the C.P.C. That point was very much raised before the appellate court when the suit was decreed on the basis of amendment being allowed and evidence led to that effect by both the parties. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff before the original court and on appeal being preferred the same decree has been maintained and turning down the point of amendment being not incorporated within the time limit as per Rule 18 Order 6 of the C.P.C. 3. This appeal has been filed on 14.5.1990 when the judgment of the appellate court was delivered on 11.5.1989 in Title appeal no. 8 of 1980. The appeal has been hopelessly barred by limitation as the same has been filed after about nine months. In the condonation petition, grounds have been taken to the effect that the appellants being village rustic persons could not know the effect of limitation and as such they went to their original home• for arranging money for filing appeal and taking certified copy and in the process delay was caused. 4. Such sort of plea is not maintainable as it appears that the appellants are not coming to the court first time as they had already fought out, First appeal before the First Appellate Court. Reasons given for delay are not at all maintainable. Further, it appears that before the decree in the appellate court was passed, appellant no.1, Most. Nago Kuar died in the year 1988 and appellant no. Reasons given for delay are not at all maintainable. Further, it appears that before the decree in the appellate court was passed, appellant no.1, Most. Nago Kuar died in the year 1988 and appellant no. 4, Smt. Rajbansi Devi about three years back, but no substitution have been made and as such appeal has been abated against the deceased-appellants, but as the suit relates to Partition suit the appeal as a whole has also been abated. 5. On merits practically there is no point of law involved except regarding compliance of Order 6 Rule 18 CPC. The matter has been dealt with by the learned 1st appellate court in length. Although, on previous occasion there were Rulings to that effect that it was the responsibility of the party concerned to file the amended plaint and made amendment in the plaint before the court, but the same had been over-ruled and it remains the duty of the office to get the plaint corrected as per the amendment allowed by the court and if there are any laches on the part of the office the same cannot take away the amendment granted by the court and when both the parties proceeded in adducing evidence or assumption of the amendment of the plaint then there remains no scope to take such a plea at the belated stage in the appeal. Learned court below has elaborately discussed the matter and I am in total agreement with the decision of the learned 1st Appellate court. 6. No other points of law has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Pratically, in this case, no point of law is involved as the plaintiff could be able to establish her title. She is entitled to eviction when there remained no evidence to the effect that the property was being partitioned by metes and bounds on previous occasion. Hence, both on merit and on legal point, this appeal has got no force and the same is rejected under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. and also being abated as a whole and also barred under the law of Limitation.