BANKU RAMULU PATRUDU Vs. KONDA NARAYANA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application to extend time for the purpose of amending the plaint has been made by the plaintiff rather in very peculiar circumstances.

(2.) THE following few facts need mention. The plaintiff, having found out a mistake in regard to the date of commencement of the partnership, filed an application to amend the plaint in O. S. No. 223 of 1955 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Vijaywada. But as that petition was rejected, he came up in a revision to this court and obtained an order dated 12 -2 -1959 to amend the plaint. But this court specified no time for carrying out the amendment. However that order was subject to the payment of costs to the defendant within three weeks. The plaintiff seems to have complied with one portion of the order as he paid the costs of Rs. 50/ - to the defendant on 24 -2 -1959. It appears from the diary that the suit which stood posted to 2 -2 -1959 was adjourned to 2 -3 -1959. The suit thereafter underwent as many as seven adjournments either on the ground that the stay issued by the High Court had been continuing or it did not suit the convenience of the court to take up the suit. It is only 21 -9 -1959 the B diary contains the entry "Stay vacated Call on 3 -10 -1959." On 3 -10 -1959, I. A. No. 2791 of 1959 was filed by the present petitioner (plaintiff) praying the trial court to order amendment to be carried out in the plaint as per the order of the High Court again, the court adjourned the case of its own accord to 19 -10 -1959 and then to 26 -10 -1959 and on 28 -10 -1959. It passed the order to carry out the amendment and adjourned the case to 5 -11 -1959. On 29 -10 -1959 the plaintiff, in pursuance of this order, carried out the amendment. This fact was noted in the B diary as on 5 -11 -1959 and the suit was posted for trial. Thereafter the defendant filed an additional written statement on 20 -1 -1960. In it, he raised the defence that the amendment of the plaint has not been carried out within the time allowed by law. upon this, the plaintiff filed C. M. P. No. 203

(3.) IN C.M.P. No. 203 of 1962, the petitioner namely, the plaintiff prays that to regularise the carrying out of the amendment which actually was effected on 21 -10 -1959, an order may be passed by this court to extending the time from 26 -2 -1959 to 29 -10 -1959. In support of this petition, the plaintiff averred in the affidavit that the order for amending the plaint had been communicated to the trial Court only late and soon thereafter he filed I. A. No. 219 of 1959 on 3 -10 -59 and with the permission of the court amended the plaint within the time granted by the trial court on 29 -10 -1959, and it was thus actually carried out within the time allowed by that court. Though it is not seriously contended on behalf of the petitioner that the trial court in the circumstances had jurisdiction to extend the time, it is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the delay is not wilful but due to bona fide reasons and that it would be competent for this court to excuse the delay exercising its inherent powers.