P.C. Jain, J.This second appeal u/s 100 of the Civil P.C., is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21st May, 1982, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Ajmer in Civil Appeal No. 242 of 1976 (12 of 1977), affirming the judgment and decree dt. 17th Nov., 1976, passed by the learned Addl. Munsiff, Ajmer City, in Civil Suit No. 60 of 1969 (6 of 1973).

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for injunction restraining the defendant from making any construction over the land or from interfering in any manner in his possession over the disputed land. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the disputed plot and he has possesion over it. The defendant contested the suit, denying that the disputed plot belongs to the plaintiff. He contended that the disputed land is a part of his property and the western boundary of his property extends to the disputed land. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dt. 12th Nov., 1973. The trial Court gave a finding that the plaintff failed to prove his title and possession over the disputed land.

3. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Ajmer, Before the appellate Court an application for amendment was submitted by the plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. to amend the prayer clause and to mention about the prayer for possession in that clause. The learned appellate Court allowed the amendment in the prayer clause and remanded the case to the trial Court for further proceedings. In the trial Court, amended plaint was filed after four months. The defendant submitted an amended written statement. The defendant-appellant raised an objection that the amended plaint was not filed within the prescribed time and, thus, the suit was liable to be dismissed. An issue to this effect along with other issues was framed, which is as follows: --

"Whether the amendment granted by the appellate Court is to be rejected u/s (Order) VI, Rule 18 of the Civil P.C.

No further evidence was adduced after the remand of the case. The trial Court decided all the issues afresh and decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dt. 17th Nov., 1976. An appeal was preferred against it. The appellate Court overruled all the objections and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dt. 21st May, 1982. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dt. 21st May, 1982 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Ajmer, this second appeal has been preferred. While admitting the case, the following substantial question of law was framed :-

"Whether the original decree of the trial Court dt. Nov., 12, 1973, dismissing the plaintiffs suit is still intact by reason of the failure of the lower appellate Court to pass any order on July 9, 1975, when it remanded the case to the trial Coururt, to set aside the said decree"

4. Shri A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that as the remand order was not in conformity with Order 41, Rule 23, C.P.C. the original decree of the trial Court dt. 12th Nov., 1973, dismissing the plaintiffs suit is still intact. Another submission made by Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, is that in view of the fact that the amended plaint was not filed within time prescribed under Order 6, Rule 18, C.P.C. the trial Court had no jurisdiction to admit the amended plaint after extending any period prescribed under Order 6, Rule 18, C.P.C. He has further submitted that the amendment was allowed by the appellate court and, as such, it was the appellate Court alone which could have extended the period for filing the amended plaint and the trial Court had no jurisdiction either to extend the period fixed by the appellate Court or to admit the amended plaint and, thus, the entire proceedings after filing of the amended plaint are without jurisdiction. Consequently, the original decree of the trial Court dt. 12th Nov., 1973, will remain intact by which the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

5. Shri Kejariwal, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the first submission made by Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, has no legs to stand. His submission is that an appeal lies against an order of remand under Order 43, Rule 1(u), C.P.C. He has further submitted that when an appeal is provided against a remand order, the same cannot be challenged in any other manner in view of Section 105(2), C.P.C., which is as follows : --

"(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), where any party aggrieved by an order of remand from which an appeal lies does not appeal therefrom, he shall thereafter be precluded from disputing its correctness."

6. The effect of this sub-section is that the party aggrieved by an order of remand from which, an appeal lies, must appeal therefrom directly, otherwise, he would be precluded from disputing its correctness. The submission raised by Shri Kejariwal has force and is sustainable. Consequently, I overrule the objection raised by Shri A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. I am, thus, of the opinion that the original decree of the trial Court dt. 12th Nov., 1973, dismissing the plaintiffs suit no more remains intact.

7. In order to substantiate his contention, about the submission that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to take on record the amended plaint after the expiry of the period prescribed under Order 6, Rule 18, C.P.C. he placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported as Roop Kishore v. Jug Raj (ILR (1953) 3 Raj 988). It may be mentioned here that when the case was remanded to the trial Court afte allowing amendment of the plaint, the Court did not give any time within which the amended plaint was required to be filed in the trial Court. Under Order 6, Rule 18, it is mentioned that when no time is limited for filing the amended plaint, then the time should be taken to be 14 days from the date of the order. 1 may further observe that the Court directed the plaintiff to pay cost within a fortnight from the date of the order. Thus, either it may be inferred from the order itself that the period for filing the amended plaint was a period of fortnight, or it will be presumed to be a period of 14 days from the date of the order by virtue of Order 6, Rule 18, C.P.C. It is an admitted case of both the parties that the amended plaint was not filed within the said period. It was filed after four months. It is also an admitted fact that the Court allowed time to the plaintiff to file the amended plaint. It is also not disputed that no extension of time was sought from the appellate Court. Shri Gupta placed reliance on Roop Kishore v. Jug Raj (supra) and submitted that when the appellate Court remanded the case with the direction to allow the amendment of the plaint within a particular time, the trial Court should not have accepted the amended plaint as the trial Court had no jurisdiction to extend the time which was fixed by the appellate Court. It is true that in that case, this Court held that the trial Court had no authority to extend the time fixed by the appellate Court for filing the amended plaint. In this connection, the learned Division Bench of this Court observed as follows :--

"As regards the contention that the trial Court was empowered to extend the time from the date of the receipt of the record to the date of the presentation of the amended plaint, we are of opinion that the trial Court was right in its view that it had no authority to extend the time which was in this case fixed by the appellate Court."

8. Shri Kejariwal, learned counsel for the respondent, controverting the submissions made by Shri Gupta, submitted that even if the trial Court had no juridiction to entertain the amended plaint, after the expiry of 14 days period from the date of order of remand, without getting it extended from the Court pasing the order of remand, this Court has jurisdiction to do so and, it showed exercise of its discretion in favour of the respondent in the circumstances of the case. Shri Kejariwal further submitted that it is the general policy of the Court that procedural subject is in aid of justice and is not substantive justice itself. Therefore, penalty for failure to comply with Courts order providing a procedural subject must be commensurate or proportionate with the gravity of lapse or omission. In the instant case, the learned trial Court granted time and the plaintiff filed the amended plaint. In case, the trial Court had rejected the request for taking the amended plaint on record, the plaintiff could have gone to the appellate Court for seeking redress for the extension of time. But, on account of the fact that it was taken on record by the trial Court, he could not avail his remedy for going to the appellate Court for extension of time. It is also clear that u/s 148, C.P.C. the Court has wide powers to enlarge the period which is fixed by the Court for taking certain steps even after the expiry of the period so fixed. In the case of Roop Kishore v. Jug Raj (ILR (1959) 3 Raj 988) (supra) referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellant the trial Judge took the view that it had no authority to extend the time which was fixed by the appellate Court and the learned Division Bench upheld the view taken by the trial Court holding that the time could be extended by the Court which granted it. In Roop Kishores case (supra), it was observed that even if the trial Court had no jurisdiction to grant any extension of time, this Court had the authority to do in the appeal. However, in the special facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Division Bench did not exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the plaintiff by holding that the prayer made on behalf of the plaintiff was without any merit and there was no justification in law for granting it; but the following observations made by the Division Bench are instructive : --

"There can be no question that in a proper case, this Court has undoubtedly power, as the final Court of appeal, to grant an extension of time where the circumstances of the case may warrant this being done."

9. In the instant case, the amended plaint was filed on 27th Oct., 1975. It was filed in the presence of the counsel for the parties and, from the order-sheet it is clear that the defendant did not raise any objection. Prior to it, on 11th Oct., 1975, counsel for both the parties were present and time was sought by the plaintiff for filing the amended plaint, and the Court was pleased to grant time. On 13th Sept. 1975, also the counsel for the defendant was present and the plaintiff sought time, which was granted by the Court without any objection. In the written statement, the defendant pleaded and raised an objection that the appellate Court allowing amendment did not fix time for submitting amended plaint, therefor, the plaintiff could have submitted the amended plaint within the period laid down under Order 6, Rule 18, C.P.C. and on failing to do so, the Court should ignore the amendment. Thus, no specific plea was raised that Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the amended plaint and, it was the appellate Court alone which could have extended the period. As already pointed out, the relief (real) issue in this regard was, whether the amendment granted by the appellate Court is to be rejected under Order 6, Rule 18, C.P.C. Thus, this too is not specific so as to cover within its ambit the objection which is now being agitated by Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. In the facts and circumtances of the case, whether it would be appropriate for this Court to extend the time or not In my opinion, the Acts and the Rules of procedure regulating their conduct are intended for the broad purpose of facilitating justice and not for impeding it. If there is any technical defect, it should be rectified by the Court u/s 148 or 151 of the Civil P.C. Section 148, C.P.C. empowers the Court to enlarge the period even if the period originally fixed might have expired. I feel that omission and lapse arising out of non-compliance of the Courts order was not of such a serious gravity so as to close the door of the Court for the respondents by dismissing the suit. It is a fit case for exercising the discretion in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Even if the trial Court had no authority to extend the time, this Court, undoubtedly, has the power to grant an extension of time and, I extend the time and, thus, remove the defect which was there. Thus, the objection raised by Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, no more survives.

10. Shri Gupta also vehemently argued on the merits of the case. Since it is a second appeal and the finding, recorded by the Courts below are based on evidence and cannot be impeached on the ground that the findings are perverse. Shri Gupta cannot be allowed to re-open the case. The documents submitted by the plaintiffs and the evidence adduced by the parties have been appreciated by both the Courts below. I do not find any procedural error or any illegality in the judgment of the trial Court and that of the first appellate court.

11. There is, thus, no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed without any order as to costs.