JAINUL ABEDIN Vs. BIBI NISHA KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Giridih on April 22, 1980. It appears that the plaintiff-opposite party applied for amendment of the plaint. The said application was allowed by the Court by its order dated May, 5, 1979. The plaintiff did not amend the plaint within the time enjoined under Rule 18, Order 6 of the Civil Procedure Code. Whereupon the defendant-petitioner moved an application on April 17, 1980 stating therein that the plaintiff-opposite party was estopped from amending the plaint.

(2.) The application was decided by the Subordinate Judge by his order dated April 22, 1980 which is impugned in this application. For some reasons he was of the view that it was for the office of the Court to have amended the plaint and that the plaintiff-opposite party could not be penalised for a mistake committed by the office. He accordingly rejected the application moved by the defendant petitioner by its order dated April 22, 1980.

(3.) The law on the point is clear. It is for a party to amend his pleadings. He cannot do so if the time prescribed by Rule 18 of Order 6 of the Civil Procedure Code has expired unless leave is granted to him to incorporate the amendment by a subsequent order passed by the Court. In so far as the amendments in the pleadings are concerned, the office does not come in the picture at all. The reasons assigned by the subordinate Judge for his order dated April 22, 1980 are wholly unsustainable. It is, however, made clear that it is for the office to give effect to an order passed under Order XXII of the Civil Procedure Code.