Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 432 (CAL)

Goutam Dey v. Shib Ratan Goenka

2009-06-22

JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA

body2009
Judgment :- (1) The plaintiffs prayer for amendment of plaint as well as the application for injunction was allowed by the learned trial Judge on 4th May, 2007. The petitioner carried out the amendment in the plaint as per the provision contained in Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure within the prescribed period of time. (2) The petitioner, however, did not carry out such amendment in his application for injunction as per Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When the said mistake was detected, the petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for extension of time for carrying out such amendment in his application for injunction as per the provision contained in Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (3) The learned trial Judge rejected the petitioners said application. (4) Hence, the instant revisional application has been filed before this Court. (5) Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that if a party was obtained an order to amend his pleadings, either in the plaint or in any application connected therewith, but does not amend accordingly within the prescribed period of time, so fixed for that purpose by the order, or if no time is thereby limited then within fourteen days from the date of the order such amendment should be carried out, failing which he shall not be permitted to carry out such amendment after 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. (6) Admittedly, the time which was allowed to him for carry out such amendment in his application for injunction has expired. As such, the petitioner cannot carry out such amendment in his application for injunction unless the time is extended by the Court as per the provision contained in Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (7) Thus, the Courts power to grant such extension under Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure is recognised under the Code. (7) Thus, the Courts power to grant such extension under Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure is recognised under the Code. (8) Since the plaintiffs prayer for amendment of the plaint as well as the application for injunction was allowed and since the amendment in the plaint has already been carried out, this Court holds that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner in not carrying out the amendment in the application for injunction within the time given to him. (9) In my view, the reasons for such failure on the part of the plaintiff in carrying out such amendment in his application for injunction cannot be held to be mala fide and as such, this Court holds that the learned trial Judge was not justified in rejecting the petitioners application for extension of time for allowing him to carry out such amendment in his application for injunction, particularly when the plaint has already been amended and the amendment is also very nominal in nature, as the name of one of the parties will be corrected only. (10) Accordingly, the impugned order set aside. (11) The revisional application is, thus, allowed. (12) Leave is granted to the plaintiff/petitioner to carry out such amendment in his application for injunction in terms of the order passed by the learned trial Judge on 4th May, 2007 within two weeks from date. Leave is granted to the learned Advocate for the petitioner to take down the gist of this order and to communicate the same to the concerned authority and the concerned authority is directed to act upon such communication without insisting on production of the certified copy of this order.