RAMKO Vs. DEVIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this case giving rise to the application under Ss, 148 and 151, C. P. C., may be briefly mentioned here. The plaintiff applied for amendment of her plaint before the trial court of Sub -Judge Bhaderwah. The trial Court refused to amend the plaint. The plaintiff came up in revision to this court and on 7 -4 -1958 the revision application was allowed and the order of the trial Court was set aside and it was directed that the amendment be allowed on payment of Rs. 20/ - as costs to the defendant and it was further ordered that the costs be deposited in Court within two months from 7 -4 -1958 failing which the revision application would stand dismissed. It appears that the parties appeared before the trial court on 20 -4 -1958 and the plaintiff asked for some more time for filing the amended plaint. The trial Court extended the time till 19 -5 -1958. On that date Mst. Ramko plaintiff submitted to the Court that her counsel was not present and prayed for further extension of time. The trial Court allowed the plaintiff to file the amended plaint by 23 -6 -1958. On that date the presiding officer was on leave and the office fixed another date for hearing of the case viz, 25 -7 -1958. On that date the plaintiff filed the amended plaint but an objection was raised by the defendant that the costs not having been paid the application for amendment of the plaint be dismissed. The trial Court allowed the objection of the defendant and dismissed the application of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff has filed an application under Ss. 148 and 151, C. P. C., for further extension of time and for setting aside the order of the trial Court dated 25 -7 -1958.

(2.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the trial Court having extended the time for filing the amendment plaint has erred in dismissing the application for amendment of the plaint. It is further contended that it was within the discretion of the trial Court to extend time under S. 148 for the payment of costs and for amendment of the plaint. In support of this view reliance is placed on Bodh Raj v. Imam Din, AIR 1932 Lah 235, in which it was held as under:

(3.) IN the above case also the time was fixed by the High Court for payment of court -fee but the Sub -judge extended the time and his successor rejected the plaint on the ground that the court -fee was not paid in time.