ALI BAIG, J.----Through this writ petition, filed under Article 71(2) of Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self Governance) Order, 2009, the petitioner/plaintiff has assailed the impugned judgment/order dated 05-07-2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit, whereby, the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit has dismissed the Civil Revision Petition (C. Rev. No.21/2018) filed by the present petitioner by maintaining the order dated 18-05-2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class Gilgit.
2. Succinctly, facts giving rise to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the present petitioner/plaintiff (hereafter referred as petitioner) instituted suit (Civil Suit No.144/2016) in the trial court for declaration and permanent injunction regarding certain landed property, situated at Mohammad Abad, Tehsil Danyore, District Gilgit, against the present respondents/defendants (hereafter referred as respondents).
3. The respondents contested the suit by filing their joint written statement in the trial court on legal and factual grounds. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed necessary issues and suit was fixed for plaintiff's evidence. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed two applications, one under Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. for production of some documents and another under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. for amendment in the plaint. The learned trial court, after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties, dismissed both the applications of petitioner through a single order dated 13-03-2018. The petitioner had filed a revision petition (C.
Rev. No.17/2018) in the court of the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit against the aforesaid order of the learned trial court which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit vide judgment dated 28-04- 2018 with the direction to file amended plaint in the learned trial court on the next date of hearing, i.e., on 04-05- 2018. But the petitioner failed to file amended plaint on 04-05-2018 and suit was adjourned to 18-05-2018 for filing of amended plaint. On 18-05-2018, again the petitioner did not file the amended plaint and accordingly, the learned trial court struck off the right of filling of amended plaint on behalf of the petitioner by invoking Order VI, Rule 18, C.P.C. vide the order dated 18-05-2018.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the learned trial court, the petitioner had filed a revision petition (C.Rev. No.21/2018) in the court of learned Additional District Judge Gilgit. The learned Additional District Judge, vide the impugned judgment dated 05-07-2018, has dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner, hence this writ petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing' on behalf of the petitioner contended that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned judgment is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that, due to strike of lawyers, the amended plaint could not be filed in the trial court in time, therefore, by accepting. this revision petition the petitioner may be allowed to file amended plaint in the trial court.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed this writ petition and supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit by contending that while allowing revision petition of the petitioner, the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit had directed the petitioner to-file amended plaint on the next date of hearing, but the petitioner failed to comply the order of learned Additional District Judge Gilgit. The learned counsel for the respondents further argued that despite clear direction of the learned revisional court, the learned trial court had afforded another chance to the petitioner to file amended plaint, but the petitioner failed to do so and violated the mandatory provisions of the Order VI, Rule 18, C.P.C., therefore, the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit has rightly dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner vide impugned judgment dated 05-07-2018 which may be maintained in the interest of justice.
7. We have given our due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record with able assistance.
8. From perusal of record, it shows that the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit, while allowing an application filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. for amendment in plaint, had directed the petitioner to file amended plaint in the trial court on the next date of hearing vide judgment dated 28-04-2018. The next date of hearing was fixed on 4-5-2018 before the trial court. The petitioner failed to file amended plaint on the fixed date, i.e., 04-05-2018.
Accordingly, the learned trial court had adjourned the case to 18-05-2018. On 18-05-2018, the petitioner again failed to file amended plaint. Accordingly, the learned trial court had debarred the petitioner from filing amended plaint vide judgment dated 18-05-2018. Under the provisions of Order VI, Rule 18, C.P.C., the petitioner was bound to re amend plaint on the next date of hearing fixed by the learned revisional court while allowing the petition of the petitioner filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C: For ease and convenience, we would like to reproduce provision Rule 18 of Order VI, C.P.C. as below:-
18. Failure to amended after order:- If a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend accordingly within the time limited for that purpose by the order, or if no time is thereby limited then within fourteen days from the date of the order, he shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such limited time as aforesaid or of such fourteen days, as the case may be, unless the time is extended by the Court.
9. From bare perusal of above reproduced provision of law, it transpires that the aforesaid provision is mandatory in nature and petitioner has violated the said provisions of law by not filing amended plaint in the trial court.
10. Moreover, it is settled law that where the appellate or revisional court allows an amendment then the trial court cannot extend time for filing of amended plaint. It is also settled law that the law favors a vigilant and not indolent.
11. In this connection, we are fortified in our view by the judgment/order dated 18-09-2017, in CPLA No.112/2017, titled "Bulbul Aman v. Naib Shah and others" passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit-Baltistan.
12. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition having no substance is hereby dismissed.
Consequently, the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit is maintained. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File.