CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD TAJ, J.---This appeal, with the leave of the Court, is directed against the judgment passed by the High Court on 10-12,2002 whereby the revision petition filed by the respondents has been accepted.
2. The facts as stated are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a declaratory suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Mirpur. The suit was dismissed. An appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment and decree on behalf of the appellant in the Court of District Judge, Mirpur was accepted. An application for amendment of the plaint was also moved which was allowed by the District Judge on the payment of the cost and the case was remanded to the trial Court. The defendant-respondents filed a revision petition before the High Court which was accepted and the case was remanded to the District Judge to decide the same on merits. Against the aforesaid order an appeal was filed in this Court which was accepted and the order of the District Judge was restored whereby the case was remanded to the trial Court. The appellant filed amended plaint. The respondents moved an application that the amended plaint was not filed according to the amendment allowed by the District Judge therefore the same may be rejected. Thereafter an application was moved on behalf of the appellant that he wants to file another amended plaint as some words have inadvertently been incorporated in the amended plaint. He filed another amended plaint which was accepted by the trial Court. The aforesaid order was challenged through a revision petition before the High Court which was accepted and the order passed by the trial Court was set aside.
3. Mr. Nazir Ahmad Ghauri, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the order passed by the High Court is illegal and not maintainable as the amended plaint was filed in the trial Court after the receipt of the file and the time was extended by the trial Court for filing the same. It was also argued that the amended plaint contained certain material which was not according to the order of amendment therefore another amended plaint was filed. It was, further argued that the aforesaid material could be deleted or ignored by the trial Court therefore the order passed by the learned Judge in the High Court was not in accordance with law.
4. Mr. Muhammad. Siddique Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the opposite side, while controverting the arguments addressed on behalf of the appellant, argued that according to the judgment passed by the District Judge whereby the amendment was allowed which order was restored by this Court in appeal did not fix the period for filing the amended plaint therefore the same could have been filed within 14 days under Order VI, rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code as such the order by the High Court was correctly passed.
5. We have heard the learned counsel, for the parties and also gone through the record carefully.
The appellant's suit for declaration was finally dismissed by the trial Court. The appeal on behalf of the appellant filed with the District Judge was accepted and application for amendment of the plaint was also allowed and the case was remanded to the trial Court. This order was challenged by the respondents before the High Court and the same was set aside through an order whereby the case was remanded to the District Judge to decide the same on merits. The order passed by the High Court was challenged by the appellant through an appeal filed before this Court. The appeal was accepted and the order passed by the District Judge was restored whereby the case was remanded to the trial Court. The trial Court received the amended plaint and thereafter received another amended plaint on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant. The order passed by the trial Court was again challenged by the respondents before the High Court through a revision petition which was accepted by setting aside the order passed by the trial Court. The High Court held that the trial Court's order was illegal as violation of Order VI, rule 18 was made. It was observed that the amended plaint was filed after 14 days the period determined by the aforementioned rule of Order VI without extending the time.
6. It may be mentioned that the order was passed by this Court on 28-1-2002. The file was received in the trial Court on 7-3-2002 when a notice was issued to the appellants for 6-4-2002. It is also worth --mentioning that the respondents also received the cost on that date. The trial Court fixed next date of hearing as 6-5-2002 for presentation of the amended plaint which was filed on the aforesaid date. The appellant moved an application on 5-8-2002 that certain words against the amendment order were incorporated in the amended plaint therefore filed another amended plaint. The respondents moved an application for rejection of the amended plaint on 5-8-2002 which was rejected. A perusal of the interim order passed by the trial Court shows that after the receipt of the file notices were issued to the parties and thereafter a direction was made for filing the amended plaint therefore the extension of time was made by the the Court. It may also be added that if some material against the amendment order was incorporated in the amended plaint the trial Court could delete the material or ignore the same as such the filing of fresh amended plaint in accordance with the amendment order could not be held as against the law. It would also be relevant to mention that under section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code the time could also be extended. The relevant section is reproduced:-- "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, even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired."
7. Therefore, the order passed by the High Court was against the facts and law as such was not maintainable. The same is, therefore, set aside by accepting the appeal with costs. Resultantly, the suit shall proceed in accordance with law in the trial Court.