PAHALI RAUT Vs. KHULANA BEWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that falls for consideration in this revision under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the instance of defendant No. 6 is if the trial Court had jurisdiction to extend time to enable defendant No. 6 whose application for amendment of the written statement had been allowed earlier to carry out the amendment long after the expiry of the period of fourteen days prescribed under O.6, R.18 of the Code.

(2.) By order dated 18-12-79 defendant No. 6's prayer for amendment of written statement was granted subject to payment of cost. Cost was paid the next day. No time having been fixed for carrying out the amendment by the order, the same was to be carried out within fourteen days from the date of the order. Defendant No. 6, however, did not amend his written statement. The matter rested like that until it was discovered much later i.e. at the state of argument that the amendment had not been incorporated in the written statement of defendant No. 6. He filed an application under S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 25-4-81 for carrying out the amendment which the officer had failed to carry out. Being of the view that it was defendant No. 6 who was to carry out the amendment and not the office, the Court rejected the application.

(3.) Mr. Sahoo, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the Court by its order did neither direct defendant No. 6 to carry out the amendment nor did it fix any time for the purpose. In many cases the amendments are carried out by the office. As the amendment was not extensive, defendant No. 6 remained under the impression that after his prayer for amendment was allowed, the same would be effected by the office. He has urged that in the facts and circumstances, when a request was made under S.151 of the Code for giving effect to the order, the Court in the interest of justice should not have refused the prayer.