JUDGMENT B.S. Bhanumathi, J. - C.R.P. No. 570 of 2020 is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order, dated 02.01.2020, passed in I.A. No. 590 of 2019 in O.S. No. 560 of 2015 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, dismissing the petition filed under Order VI Rule 18 read with Section 151 CPC to pass orders not permitting the respondent/plaintiff to amend the plaint, as per orders dated 05.09.2018 in I.A. No. 238 of 2018 in O.S. No. 560 of 2015. 2. C.R.P. No. 572 of 2020 is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order, dated 08.05.2019, passed in I.A. No. 710 of 2018 in I.A. No. 238 of 2018 in O.S. No. 560 of 2015 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, allowing the petition filed under Section 151 CPC to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to deposit costs of Rs. 3,000/- in court as the respondent/defendant's counsel refused to receive the same in I.A. No. 238 of 2018. 3. I.A. No. 238 of 2018 which was filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint was allowed, on 05.09.2018, with a condition to pay costs of Rs. 3,000/- by the petitioner/plaintiff to the respondent/defendant and the matter was posted to 12.09.2018. On 12.09.2018, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant filed a memo to the effect that the respondent/defendant is going to prefer a revision before the High Court against the orders in I.A. No. 238 of 2018 and therefore, the respondent/defendant has not received the costs of Rs. 3,000/- from the petitioner/plaintiff on 12.09.2018. 4. C.R.P. No. 6238 of 2018 was filed against the orders in I.A. No. 238 of 2018 and an interim order of stay was obtained on 23.01.2019 staying all further proceedings in the suit. The same has been communicated to the Court on 29.01.2019 by filing a memo to that effect. The revision was ultimately dismissed on 14.03.2019. 5. In between, on 31.10.2018, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 710 of 2018 seeking permission of the Court to deposit costs of Rs. 3,000/- in Court. Finally, I.A. No. 710 of 2018 was allowed on 08.05.2019. Consequently, costs were deposited and amendment was carried out on 28.06.2019. The revision was ultimately dismissed on 14.03.2019. 5. In between, on 31.10.2018, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 710 of 2018 seeking permission of the Court to deposit costs of Rs. 3,000/- in Court. Finally, I.A. No. 710 of 2018 was allowed on 08.05.2019. Consequently, costs were deposited and amendment was carried out on 28.06.2019. Meanwhile, I.A. No. 590 of 2019 was filed by the respondent/defendant on 26.04.2019 praying the Court not to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to carry out the amendment. The said petition is filed under Order XVI Rule 18 CPC in view of bar as to the time limit was indicated for carrying out amendment after leave to amendment was granted by the Court. The said petition was dismissed on 02.01.2020 against which C.R.P. No. 570 of 2020 was filed. While I.A. No. 590 of 2019 is pending, I.A. No. 710 of 2018 was disposed of and costs were deposited and amendment was carried out. Thus, both the revision petitions have come up for decision by this Court. 6. Heard Sri A. Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri G. Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant and Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant contended that time stipulated under Order VI Rule 18 CPC is mandatory whereas the petition seeking permission for deposit vide I.A. No. 710 of 2018 was filed with 49 days delay, though 14 days time only was given under Order VI Rule 18 CPC. He further submitted that since the time stipulated therein is mandatory, the trial Court ought not to have permitted to carry out the amendment after so long delay. In this regard, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pramod Gupa (dead) by LRs. (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1, wherein at paragraphs 138 and 140, it was held as under: '138. It may be true that not only the memorandum of appeal but also the reference was amended. Mr. Rao pointed out that the necessary amendments have been carried out in the application for reference or memorandum of appeal. (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1, wherein at paragraphs 138 and 140, it was held as under: '138. It may be true that not only the memorandum of appeal but also the reference was amended. Mr. Rao pointed out that the necessary amendments have been carried out in the application for reference or memorandum of appeal. In terms of Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such amendments are required to be carried out in the pleadings by a party who has obtained leave to amend his pleadings within the time granted therefore and if no time was specified then within fourteen days from the date of passing of the order. The consequence of failure to amend the pleadings within the period specified therein as laid down in Order VI Rule 18 of the Code is that the party shall not be permitted to amend his pleadings thereafter unless the time is extended by the court. It is not in dispute that such an order extending the time specified in Order VI Rule 18 has not been passed. 140. We have noticed hereinbefore that the amendments have not been carried out in the pleadings in terms of Order VI, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said provision being mandatory, if not complied with the consequences flowing therefrom shall ensue.' He further placed reliance on the decision of High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Bhreemreddy Yella Reddy v. Bheemreddy Narasimha Reddy C.R.P. No. 678 of 2015, dated 28.8.2015, wherein, at paragraph No. 10 it was held as follows: 'The time limits fixed in the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (22 of 2002) cannot be totally ignored altogether even if they are construed as not mandatory. This is a classic case where, having been obtained an order from the Court below for amendment of plaint, fair copy of plaint is not filed for a period of 3 years and 7 months. By no stretch of imagination, can this sort of delay be condoned by invoking Section 148 C.P.C. In my considered opinion, it is not open to 1st respondent to blame his Counsel for his own negligence and he has to suffer the consequences of the same.' 8. By no stretch of imagination, can this sort of delay be condoned by invoking Section 148 C.P.C. In my considered opinion, it is not open to 1st respondent to blame his Counsel for his own negligence and he has to suffer the consequences of the same.' 8. Nextly, he placed reliance on the decision of High Court of Madras in Southern Ancillaries Pvt. Ltd. v. Southern Alloy Foundaries Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2003 MADRAS 416, wherein at paragraphs No. 24 &25, it was held as follows: '24. If one carefully reads the provision viz., Order-VI Rule-18 CPC., it could be seen that if a party, after the court allowing his application for amendment of the written statement, fails to carry out amendment in the written statement, then, necessarily the Court has to proceed only on the basis of the (unamended) written statement. The fact that such defendant has separately filed an amended written statement (not carrying out the amendment in the original one), would not be of any use to him. The issue is answered accordingly. 25. We sum up the legal position as under:- i] The defendant can make a counter claim even after filing the written statement but that should be before the commencement of recording of evidence. ii] Generally an amendment once allowed will relate back to the date of filing of the plaint/written statement. iii] Court may make it clear while allowing such amendment that it will not relate back to the date of filing of the plaint/written statement. iv] Even if in the order allowing amendment it is not stated that the order would not relate back, it will be open to the aggrieved party to contend that the order (allowing amendment) would not relate back at the time of the trial of the suit. v] If after allowing the amendment, the concerned party does not take care to amend the plaint/written statement within the period allowed or within 14 days where no period is fixed, or within the extended period, the plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of the period and the Court has to only consider the unamended plaint or written statement.' 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the time stipulated under Order VI Rule 18 is directory and not mandatory as observed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, relying on the previous decision of the Supreme Court, in Vinod Kumar Arora v. Santosh Kumari and another AIR 2005 PUNJAB and HARYANA 169. He further submitted that Order VI Rule 18 itself permitted the amendment to be carried out within the time permitted by the Court, and in the present case, the trial Court has permitted the amendment to be carried out within time permitted by the Court. He further submitted that since the order permitting the amendment is conditional by payment of Rs. 3,000/- as costs and whereas, the respondent/defendant did not receive such costs and filed a memo to that effect also, the order could not be complied and unless such condition is complied, there was no occasion for the petitioner to carry out the amendment. He further submitted that since the respondent/defendant obtained orders of stay of the proceedings in the trial Court, the petitioner was prevented from proceeding further. In addition, he submitted that as the respondent/defendant preferred revision petition against the orders passed in I.A. No. 710 of 2018, until disposal of the said revision before this Court, he has time for carrying out the amendment. 10. Here, it is necessary to excerpt Order VI Rule 18 CPC, which reads as under: '18. 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.' 11. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, the occasion to carry out the amendment would arise only on compliance of the condition imposed by the Court. Since the revision petitioner has created a stumbling block in compliance of the condition, it cannot be said that the respondent/plaintiff could carry out the amendment. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, the occasion to carry out the amendment would arise only on compliance of the condition imposed by the Court. Since the revision petitioner has created a stumbling block in compliance of the condition, it cannot be said that the respondent/plaintiff could carry out the amendment. The order of the trial Court granting leave to amend becomes operative insofar as carrying out amendment is concerned, only on compliance of the condition. 12. The person who caused the hurdle in complying the condition cannot blame the other party for non-compliance. The plaintiff offered the amount of costs within a short period after the order, i.e., within 14 days of the order. In fact because of the revision petitioner, all the prolonged litigation continued even after disposal of I.A. No. 238 of 2018. Moreover, the Court is not powerless to extend the time granted by it under the provisions of CPC. Though the petition in I.A. No. 710 of 2018 is filed under Section 151 CPC, the power under Section 148 CPC can also be exercised wherever necessary to extend the time fixed by the Court for doing an act under the provisions of the CPC. It is also settled law that such extension can be granted even after expiry of the period originally stipulated by the Court for compliance of its directions. That is how, I.A. No. 710 of 2018 is valid in law since the plaintiff has valid reasons in not being able to comply with the condition because of the defendant in not accepting the amount tendered within time. of course, I.A. No. 710 of 2018 was filed within 49 days after 12.09.2018, but such time is not inordinate. Though the other application in I.A. No. 590 of 2019 was filed not to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to carry out amendments, the same was pending as on the date of granting permission for deposit, vide orders in I.A. No. 710 of 2018. By then, the revision petitioner has not taken steps to get the said application disposed of before the amendment was carried out. Thus, the said application has become infructuous also. However, for valid reasons, the trial Court has rightly dismissed I.A. No. 590 of 2019. When the Code has granted permission extending the time, the revision petitioner cannot contend that amendment was not carried out within 14 days time. Thus, the said application has become infructuous also. However, for valid reasons, the trial Court has rightly dismissed I.A. No. 590 of 2019. When the Code has granted permission extending the time, the revision petitioner cannot contend that amendment was not carried out within 14 days time. Rule 18 speaks of 14 days period, where there is no time stipulated in the order. of course, in the present case, no time is specified in the order in I.A. No. 238 of 2018. However, since the order passed therein is conditional, and the plaintiff was not allowed when that condition was intended to be complied, there is a reasonable cause for extension of the stipulated period. Various provisions of CPC would stipulate time for performance of any direction or order of Court, but at the same time, a provision is made for extension of such time prescribed. That apart, inherent power of a Court is always available under Section 151 CPC to pass an order appropriate to meet the ends of justice so long as it does not come in conflict with any other express provision in the Code. Thus, the impugned order cannot be held to be improper or illegal. 13. It is pertinent to refer the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sugandhi (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. vs. P. Rajkumar (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 706, wherein it was observed as under:- 'It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute.' 14. Further, it is time and again held by the apex Court that the endeavor of the Courts must be to decide the matter on merits rather than limiting the rights of the parties by obstructing them seeking recourse to law. 15. Accordingly, both the revision petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ------------