Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25-9-1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Jodhpur City, Jodhpur in Civil Suit No. 73/96, Bharat Singh v. Mohd. Yousuf. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 18 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. It appears that the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint. The application filed by the plaintiff was allowed by the order dated 17-3-1998 subject to payment of costs to the tune of Rs. 150/- payable to the defendant. By the same order, it was directed that the amended plaint should be filed within a period of 14 days. The Court, however, adjourned the case to 2-4-1998. The amended plaint was not filed within the period of 14 days allowed by the order dated 17-3-1998. The amended plaint was filed on 2-4-1998 which was the date fixed for hearing by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) in his order. On 2-4-1998 when the amended plaint was filed, no objection was raised by the defendant against the filing of the amended plaint as observed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) in his order. About 17 days after the filing of the amended plaint, the petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 6, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the plaintiff should not be permitted to amend the plaint as the amended plaint had not been filed within aperiod of 14 days fixed by the order dated 17-3-1998. The learned Civil Judge (J.D.) rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure on two grounds. The first was that no objection was raised by the defendant on 2-4-1998 when the amended plaint was filed. The second ground was that the Court itself had fixed on 2-4-1998 for filing of the amended plaint. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 25-9-1998, the defendant-petitioner has approached this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. The learned counsel has submitted that when the trial Court had granted 14 days time to the plaintiff to file the amended plaint, it was necessary for the plaintiff to have filed the amended plaint within the period of 14 days notwithstanding that the date of hearing fixed by the Court was 2-4-1998 and since that has not been done, the provisions of Order 6, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable and the plaintiffs application for amendment of the plaint deserves to be rejected for non-compliance of the order dated 17-3-1998. It is further submitted by him that when the trial Court had itself granted 14 days time to the plaintiff to amend the plaint, the view taken by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) that 2-4-1998 was fixed for filing of amended plaint is not correct. It is also submitted by him that the plaintiff did not file any application under Section 148 or Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to extend the time granted for filing of amended plaint and, therefore, the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) could not have extended the time for filing of the amended plaint to 2-4-1998. In support of these contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Bool Chand v. Ayodhya Lal 1986 RLW 470 : AIR 1987 Raj 76. I have gone through the decision given by the learned single Judge. At page 473 of the Law Weekly, the learned single Judge has observed (at page 39 of AIR) :--

"In my opinion, the Acts and Rules of procedure regulating their conduct are intended for broad purpose of facilitating justice and not for impending it. If there is any technical defect, it should be rectified by the Court under Section 448 or 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 148, CPC 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."

5. Broadly speaking, I respectfully concur with the view taken by the learned single Judge. There can be no dispute with the proposition that once the Court has fixed the time within which the amended plaint has to be filed but it was obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to have filed the amended plaint within a period of 14 days. The fact that the case had been listed on 2-4-1998 by the trial Judge did not absolve the plaintiff from filing of amended plaint within a period fixed by order dated 17-3-1998. In view of this, the learned counsel for the petitioner is technically right that the amended plaint ought to have been filed within the period of 14 days fixed by order dated 17-3-1998. It is also true that where time has been fixed by the Court, the Court may extend the time granted by it from time to time under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure provided that the Court thinks it fit to do so. The discretion to grant extension of time is there and that discretion cannot be denied. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an application by the plaintiff seeking extension of time ought to have been filed and without such application, the Court had no jurisdiction to grant extension of time.

6. Where a party has been given time and it fails to perform the act within a prescribed time and wants extension of time, the proper course for the party is to file the application under Section 148 or 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the case may be. But it does not mean that the Court cannot itself extend time under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if in the opinion of the Court the circumstances warrant such an extension. The words used in Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure are "where any period is fixed or granted by the Court for doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Code, the Court may, in its discretion, from time to time, enlarge such period, even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired." A bare perusal of Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure shows that the power has been conferred on the Court and filing of an application for extension of time is not necessary and it is within the jurisdiction of the Court to extend time under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the decision in Bool Chand v. Ayodhya Lal (: AIR 1987 Raj 36 ) (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned single Judge recognised such a power in the Court under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure and further pointed out that omission and lapse arising out of non-compliance of 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 and the learned single Judge enlarged the time. I am, therefore, of considered opinion that if a party seeks enlargement of time on the ground that for some valid reasons it could not perform the act which was required to be performed within the time granted by the Court, it is for the party to move an application under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure and convince the Court that the interest of justice require extension of time whether prospectively or retrospectively under Section 148f of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is not obligatory to move such an application in all cases. Where the omission on the part of a party is trivial and the mistake committed by him is not of the serious nature and does not adversely affect the right of the parties, the Court may itself extend the time under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure so that the technical defect may be removed and the hearing of the case may proceed in accordance with law as was done by the learned single Judge in the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This approach makes a distinction between two types of cases. One in which the mistake is not so serious as to require an explanation by the party committing mistake and the Court itself is convinced that the mistake being not very serious the time should be extended to correct it. The second type of cases would be those where the mistake committed by the party is of such a nature as to call for an explanation of the party for not complying with the order within the time. In such cases, the Court may decline to suo motu grant extension of time unless a proper application under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the party committing the breach of the Courts order.

7. After carefully considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that this case falls in the first category, in which without necessitating an application under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure for extension of time, time should have been extended under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) appears to have done so, though the words used are not very happy.

8. I, therefore, do not find any substance in this revision petition. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.