1. Petitioner-plaintiff, Om Parkash, filed a suit for declaration and injunction in the Court of Sub-Judge, Katra. During the pendency, he filed an application for permitting him to amend the plaint, came to be granted with the direction to file the amended plaint within the time frame but failed to do so within the time frame. He filed an application in terms of Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short "Code") for extension of time for doing the needful. Defendant-non-applicant-respondent resisted the petition on the grounds taken in the objections. 2. The trial Court dismissed the application and held that right of filing amended plaint within the time frame had come to an end and time cannot be extended in terms of Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code or Section 148 of the Code, Feeling aggrieved, petitioner-plaintiff by the medium of this petition has challenged the order dated 29th May, 2006 where under the application came to be dismissed (for short "impugned order"). 3. The core question involved in this petition is whether the time frame fixed in terms of Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code can be extended while invoking the provisions of Section 148 of the Code? It is apt to reproduce Section 148 of the Code hereunder: - "148. Enlargement of time- Where any period is fixed or granted by the Court for the 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." 4. This provision provides that the period fixed or granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Code, may be enlarged from time to time by the Court in its discretion, even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired. This provision provides that the period fixed or granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Code, may be enlarged from time to time by the Court in its discretion, even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired. It is also apt to reproduce Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code hereunder: - "O 6 R 18 CPC- 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 fourteen 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 fourteen days, as the case may be, unless the time is extended by the Court." 5. While going through this provision of law, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the time frame can be extended by the Court. 6. Now question arises whether application is to be filed in terms of Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code or Section 148 of the Code? 7. The words used in Section 148 of the Code are "period is fixed or granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Code". 8. While going through Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code (supra), it permits to amend the petition within the time frame fixed by the Court or if not fixed by the Court then within fourteen days as allowed by the said provision. 9. Viewed thus, the answer is that application can be filed in terms of Section 148 of the Code read with Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code. 10. The provisions/rules contained in the Civil Procedure Code are intended to advance the cause of justice and not to obstruct the course of substantive justice. 11. In Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal versus National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, AIR 1969 SC 1267, the Honble Supreme Court observed as under: - "5. The order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensed for by an order of costs. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. In Amulakchand Mewaram v. Babulal Kanalal, 35 Bom LR 569 = (AIR 1933 Bom 304), Beaumont, C.J., in delivering the judgment of the Bombay High Court set out the principles applicable to cases like the present and observed. 12. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in a case titled M/s. Ganesh Trading Company versus Moji Ram, AIR 1978 SC 484. Same view was reiterated by the Apex Court in another case titled as Harcharan versus State of Haryana, AIR 1983 SC 43. Viewed thus, the provisions of Order 6 Rules 17 & 18 of the Code are to be read with the provisions of Section 148 of the Code, which empowers the Court to enlarge the time fixed or allowed by itself. 13. Apex Court in Mahanth Ram Das versus Ganga Das, AIR 1961 SC 882, while considering the provisions of Sections 148, 149 & 151 of the Code held that Section 148 of the Code permits extension of time even if the period fixed or granted has expired. Further held that Section 149 of the Code is equally liberal. 14. Apex Court in case titled Chinnamarkathian alias Muthu Gounder and another (in C.A. No. 2197 of 1969), Chinna Gounder and another (in C.A. No. 2198 of 1969) and Raja Gounder and another (in C.A. No. 2199 of 1969) versus Ayyavoo alias Periana Gounder and others, reported as AIR 1982 SC 137 held that Court is within its jurisdiction to extend time fixed or granted even after its expiry. 15. 15. Apex Court has also laid down the same principle in the cases titled as Jogdhayan versus Babu Ram and others, reported as AIR 1983 SC 57, Smt. Periyakkal and others versus Smt. Dakshyani, reported as AIR 1983 SC 428 and M/s. Konkan Trading Company versus Suresh Govmd Kamat Tarkar and others, reported as AIR 1986 SC 1009. 16. Rajasthan High Court in a case titled Mohammed Yousuf versus Bharat Singh, reported as AIR 1999 Rajasthan, 185 laid down that the Court can extend time frame. 17. Apex Court in a case titled Prem Narain versus Vishnu Exchange Charitable Trust and others, reported as (1984) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 375 also held that the trial Court should be liberal while extending time in order to advance the cause of justice. 18. The same view was taken by various Honble High Courts in the cases reported as AIR 1950 All. 675, AIR 1957 All. 558, AIR 1958 Kerala, 88 (SB), AIR 1997 Kerala 203, AIR 1987 Raj, 36, AIR 1985 Orissa 165, AIR 1974 Kant, 136 and AIR 1977 Gujarat, 109. 19. Division Bench of our Court in a case titled Krishan Dutt versus Mohinder Nath, reported as AIR 1975 Jammu and Kashmir, 18 held that the Court has no power to extend time when lis has come to an end because the Court becomes functus officio. 20. Full Bench of this Court in case titled Bindru versus Kikru and others, reported as 1988 SLJ, 61 held that when the lis is pending, the Court can in its discretion extend time while keeping in view the provisions of Section 148 of the Code read with Section 151 of the Code and has also held that when the lis has come to an end the provision of Section 148 of the Code cannot be pressed into service. 21. Apex Court in a case titled Johri Singh versus Sukh Pal Singh and others, reported as AIR 1989 Supreme Court, 2073 held that it is immaterial whether lis is pending or not and further held that Section 148 of the Code provides that Court in its discretion can extend time fixed or granted even after its expiry. 22. 21. Apex Court in a case titled Johri Singh versus Sukh Pal Singh and others, reported as AIR 1989 Supreme Court, 2073 held that it is immaterial whether lis is pending or not and further held that Section 148 of the Code provides that Court in its discretion can extend time fixed or granted even after its expiry. 22. The Judgment reported as 1988 SLJ 61 (supra), lays down that when a lis has come to an end Section 148 of the Code cannot be invoked in order to seek extension of time, but the Apex Court in a judgment reported as AIR 1989 SC 2073 (Supra) provides rather lays down the law that even if the lis has come to an end the time fixed or granted by the Court can be extended. However, in the present, case the lis has not come to an end but is still pending. 23. Keeping in view the discussion made hereinabove and the law laid-down by the Apex Court and the other Honble High Courts and by this Court, I hold that the trial Court has fallen in an error by holding that Section 148 of the Code was not applicable. It is accordingly held that the plaintiff was within its power and rights to file a petition under Section 148 of the Code for extension of time and the trial Court was within its jurisdiction to grant it subject to the condition that petitioner had to carve out a sufficient cause. 24. It is averred in the application moved by the plaintiff in terms of Section 148 of the Code before the trial Court that there was communication gap for the reason that the other proceedings arising out of the same dispute, were pending in higher Courts and that was the reason the plaintiff could not file an amended plaint in time fixed by the Court. 25. Apex Court in cases titled State of Punjab versus Renuka Singla, AIR 1994 SC 595, Surinder Singh Sibia versus Vijay Kumar Sood, AIR 1992 SC 1540, Madan Lal versus Shyam Lal, AIR 2002 SC 100, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation versus Ashrafulla Khan, AIR 2002 SC 629, Ram Nath Sao versus Goverdhan Sao, AIR 2002 SC 1201, M/s. Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Smt, Nirmala Devi, AIR 1979 SC 1666, State of West Bengal versus Administrator, Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749, Shakuntala Devi Jain versus Kuntal Kumari, AIR 1969 SC 575, Arjun Singh versus Mahindra Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993, Ram Lal Motilal versus Rewa Coal Fields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, Kunwar Rajemlra Singh versus Rai Rajeshwar Bali, AIR 1937 PC 276 held that the Court(s) should be generous/liberal while exercising direction and must interpret sufficient cause in such a way which would advance cause of justice. 26. While going through the judgments (supra), I am of the considered view that the petitioner-plaintiff has carved out a sufficient cause for seeking extension of time. Even otherwise, as discussed hereinabove, procedural law/rules are meant for achieving justice. The mystic may be s have no role to play. The Court should not succumb to the procedural wrangles, tangles, technicalities and niceties. The effort should be to advance the cause of justice and settle the dispute once for all and not to adopt short cuts. 27. In the given circumstances, I hereby hold that the petition merits to be allowed and the impugned order merits to be set aside. Accordingly, petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside. The application of the `plaintiff is granted and two months time is granted, to the petitioner plaintiff to file the amended petition before the trial Court, from today. Parties are directed to cause their appearance before the trial Court on 11th May, 2009.