Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who is the defendant in Title Suit No.79 of 2012, is aggrieved of order dated 24.07.2017 by which 3 days' further time has been granted to incorporate the amendment in the plaint with cost of Rs.500/- to be paid to the petitioner.
(2.) The stand taken by the defendant is that there was inordinate delay by the plaintiff in filing the application under Section 148 CPC. Section 148 CPC reads as under: "148. Enlargement of time.- Where any period is fixed or granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Code, the Court may, in its discretion, from time to time, enlarge such period, not exceeding thirty days in total, even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired."
(3.) Considering the scope of Section 148 CPC, in Nashik Municipal Corpn. v. R.M. Bhandari, 2016 6 SCC 245, the Supreme Court has observed as under : "15. In terms of Section 148 CPC court has the discretion to extend the time. The words "not exceeding thirty days in total" have been inserted by the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999. Observing that if the act could not be performed within thirty days for the reasons beyond the control of the parties, the time beyond maximum thirty days can be extended under Section 151 CPC, in Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v. Union of India, 2005 6 SCC 344 this Court in para 41 held as under: (SCC p. 372) "41. The amendment made in Section 148 affects the power of the court to enlarge time that may have been fixed or granted by the court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by the Code. The amendment provides that the period shall not exceed 30 days in total. Before amendment, there was no such restriction of time. Whether the court has no inherent power to extend the time beyond 30 days is the question. We have no doubt that the upper limit fixed in Section 148 cannot take away the inherent power of the court to pass orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of the court. The rigid operation of the section would lead to absurdity. Section 151 has, therefore, to be allowed to operate fully. Extension beyond maximum of 30 days, thus, can be permitted if the act could not be performed within 30 days for reasons beyond the control of the party. We are not dealing with a case where time for doing an act has been prescribed under the provisions of the Limitation Act which cannot be extended either under Section 148 or Section 151. We are dealing with a case where the time is fixed or granted by the court for performance of an act prescribed or allowed by the court.";