RAJALAKSHMI Vs. P SHANTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit O.S. No. 1856 of 1984 which was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for a declaration of her title and for prohibitory and mandatory injunctions. Pending suit, the respondent-plaintiff filed an application, I.A. No. 2981 of 1984 for amendment of plaint, particularly with regard to the boundaries of the suit property under O. 6, R. 17, of the Code of Civil Procedure but the same was dismissed by the trial court. THE respondent preferred C.R.P. No. 630 of 1985 and the same was allowed on 19.4.1985 by the High Court with the result the respondent was permitted to amend the plaint. No time was fixed by the High Court for carrying out the amendment. THE respondent received the copy of order in C.R.P. No. 630 1985 on 6.5.1985. THE High Court directed the payment of Rs. 100/- as costs to the petitioner herein and the same was also paid by the respondent subsequently. THE amendment in the plaint was not carried out by the respondent as the records had been sent to High Court in connection with C.R.P. No. 630 of 1985 and they were received back by the trial court sometime after 19.4.1985. THE respondent came to know that the amendment was not carried out in the plaint only on receipt of the certified copy of the decree of the trial court and therefore, she filed T.A. No. 1491 of 1991 seeking permission of the court to carry out the amendment and the same was opposed by the petitioner as time barred. In the meantime the petitioners had preferred an appeal, A.S. No. 221 of 1991 in the District Court, Salem, against the judgment and decree of the trial court in O.S. No. 1856 of 1984. THE application in I.A. No. 1491 of 1991 filed by the respondent was kept pending in the trial court. THE respondent filed application in I.A. No. 46 of 1992 in A.S. No. 221 of 1991 in the District Court, Salem, praying for permission of the Court to carry out the amendment in the plaint under O. 6 R. 18 of the C.P.C. by pleading that it could not be carried out within the time prescribed for the reason that the records had been sent to High Court for the purpose of C.R.P. No. 630 of 1985 and the records were received late and no time was prescribed for carrying out the amendment. THE petitioners-defendants opposed the application contending that the amendment ought to have been carried out within 15 days from the date of the order if no time was prescribed in the order of the High Court and that as such the application was barred by time. THE petitioners also pleaded that they were to be given an opportunity for filing additional written statement if the amendment that was allowed by the High Court was carried out in the plaint. THE learned Principal District Judge who enquired the application I.A. No. 46 of 1992 allowed the same on condition that the respondent should pay Rs. 100/- as costs to the petitioners on or before 10.3.1992 failing which the application shall stand dismissed. THE matter was to be called on 10.3.1992. THE petitioners have come forward with the present revision petition challenging the correctness of the said order of the learned Principal District Judge.

(2.) I heard the claims and contentions of the learned counsel on both sides. It is not in dispute that in the suit filed by the respondent the amendment of plaint sought for by the respondent in the trial court was rejected but that the same was allowed by the High Court in C.R.P. No. 630 of 1985 on 19.4.1985. It is also not in dispute that the order of the High Court does not prescribe any time limit within which the amendment should be carried out in the plaint. Even the fact that the respondent has not carried out the amendment in the plaint within 14 days from 19.4.1985 as contemplated under O. 6, R. 18 of the C.P.C. is not in dispute. O. 6, R. 18 of the C.P.C. says: ?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.? The plea of the respondent is that she could not carry out the amendment because the records had been sent to the High Court in connection with C.R.P. No. 630 of 1985 and they were returned to the trial court long after 19.4.1985 and in any event, not within 14 days from 19.4.1985. The respondent is said to have received the copy of the order in the C.R.P. only on 6.5.1985 which is also after 14 days from 19.4.1985. If 14 days time is calculated from 19.4.1985, the date of the order, it comes to 3.5.1985 and that must be the date within which the respondent was to carry out the amendment in the plaint and that she could not be permitted to carry out the amendment subsequent to 3.5.1985. The fact that the records were held up in the High Court as mentioned above and that the same had been returned to the trial court after 14 days from 19.4.1985 is not at all disputed in this case.