- (1.)THE facts of the case in the nutshell are that by order dated 7-1-1994, the learned Trial Court had allowed the plaintiffs application for amendment of the plaint from which Revision Petition No. 1590 of 1994 now listed along with had been filed. The Trial Court had granted time till 15-1-1994 to incorporate the amendment within specified period. According to the applicant, he could not carry out the amendment on or before 15-1-1994 and so he applied for time for incorporating the amendment to be extended. This application was made on 22-1-1994. It may be mentioned here that revision filed by the defendant namely Civil Revision petition No. 1590 of 1994 has been dismissed by this Court today i. e. 15-6-1998, Manjunath Gopalkrishna Bhat v Ganapati Gopalkrishna bhat. The Trial Court rejected the permission to extend the time opining that by virtue of provisions of Order 6, Rule 18, it is provided that when a party had obtained an order for leave to amend, but does not amend accordingly within the time limited for that purpose, he shall not be permitted to amend after expiration of such limited time. Therefore, the Trial Court observed that the plaintiff has lost his opportunity which was given to him by this Court by its order dated 7-1-1994. It is on this ground, the Court has viewed that it cannot be permitted to carry out the same under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code. Learned Counsel for the applicant feeling aggrieved from the order impugned has filed this revision No. 788 of 1994.
(2.)LEARNED Counsel contended that on the basis of misinterpretation of Order 6, Rule 18 and Section 151, the learned Court below illegally refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it to allow time to incorporate the amendment as had been ordered in order dated 7-1-1994. Learned Counsel for the revisionist-applicant further contended that even Section 148 of Civil Procedure Code provides that even after the expiry of period for doing certain things, it is within the power of the court to extend the time and to allow the party time to do it accordingly. Learned Counsel contended that rules of procedure are meant to substantiate and subserve the course of justice. Learned Counsel contended that this is a case of illegal refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested.
(3.)THIS contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant has been hotly contested by Sri R. G. Hegde, learned Counsel for the respondent. Learned Counsel contended that it was not within the power of the court to allow time to incorporate amendment. That revision is not maintainable. Learned Counsel contended that when the revisionist-applicant did not carry out amendment within the time prescribed, he could not be permitted to do so. Learned Counsel made a reference to a case of Keshardeo Chamria v Radha Kissen Chamria and Others , and contended that orders passed under Section 151 are neither appealable nor revisable.