1. This revisional application has been filed against an Order No. 45 dated 12.6.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Darjeeling in O.C. Declaration Suit No.03 of 2023.

2. The case of the petitioner in a nut shell is that the suit filed by the plaintiff/opposite parties against the present petitioner/defendant for declaration and injunction. On October, 21, 2024 an application was filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of their plaint. Present petitioner contested the said application and the learned trial Court after hearing both the parties passed an order dated May 31st, 2025 allowing the amendment application and directed the plaintiffs/opposite parties to file the amended plaint within 14 days that is on June 16, 202. The plaintiffs/opposite parties failed to comply the said order within the said period and vide an order dated July 14, 2025. Learned Court passed an order whereby plaintiffs were disentitled to file their amended plaint in terms of Order VI Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code. After that said order posted for evidence of the plaintiffs/opposite parties on August 8, 2025. On the said date the opposite party file examination-in-chief on affidavit and the cross-examination of the said witness has started. After commencement of such evidence and lapse of nine months from the order disentitle plaintiffs/opposite parties filed their amended plaint on April 8, 2026. Opposite parties engaged new counsel and preferred an application on May 20, 2026 under Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to recall the order dated July 7, 2025.

3. Learned Court considered such application after hearing both the parties and passed the order on June 12, 2026 giving liberty to the plaintiffs to file amended plaint in terms of order May 31st, 2025 subject to payment of costs of Rs. 300/- to be payable to the present petitioners/defendants in addition to the costs of Rs. 1,000/-directed to be paid in the previous order dated May 31st, 2025.

4. Being aggrieved thereby the instant revisional application has been filed. The submission of the learned advocate representing the petitioner pertains gross negligence on the part of the present opposite parties/plaintiffs in complying with the direction of the learned Court in filing amended plaint within the stipulated period of time and in terms of Order VI Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiffs are no more entitle to file same unless such time period was extended further by the learned Court. It is further contended that application under the Section 145 of the CPC was filed for extension of the period and plaintiffs were disentitled from filing their amended plaint by a specific judicial order. The said order was never challenged before the any other forum and therefore had attained finality. Long thereafter when the evidence started only in order to harass the present petitioner and for collecting fresh evidence the instant application under Section 151 of the CPC was filed for recalling the order of disentitlement of the plaintiffs/opposite parties to file the amended plaint.

5. It is further contended that the learned advocate put reliance on the decision reported in AIR 2008 in State of U.P & Ors Vs. Roshan Singh & Ors 1190 as well as decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi reported in (2022) 205 PLR 33 Tharvinder Singh and Ors. Vs. Viresh Chopra and Ors. where the principles were discussed to recall exercise of inherent powers by Court.

6. However, put reliance in the decision AIR 2005 SC 3708 Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRS Vs. State of U.P paragraph 75 where it was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the “The consequence of failure to amend the pleadings within the period specified therein as laid down in Order VI Rule 18 of the Code is that the party shall not be permitted to amend his pleadings thereafter unless the time is extended by the Court”. In that case order extending the time specified in Order VI Rule 18 was not passed.

7. Accordingly it is submitted that the order passed by the learned trial Court dated June 12, 2026 is liable to set aside and no opportunity should be given to the plaintiffs/opposite parties to file such amendment plaint.

8. Per contra learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties at the outset submits present revisional application barred by the estoppels weaver and acquiescence cases in the amend order. There was the specific condition stipulated to pay the costs of Rs. 3,000/- in addition to Rs. 1,000/- and only on fulfilling such condition the plaintiffs/opposite parties were permitted to file their amended plaint. But the present petitioner duly received the said entire costs. Therefore, party who accepts benefit of order given turn around and assailed it and the revisional application has been filed. After that accepts of costs through suffers of lack of bona fide and amounts to abuse of the process. It is further contended by the learned advocate that in this case the amendment application was allowed permitting the plaintiff to file amended plaint within a stipulated time which he failed to comply in the petition filed under Section 151 of the CPC. Ground was mentioned to that extent concerned conducting advocate who was representing plaintiffs at that point of time did not take the appropriate steps which only came to be known after the evidence was started. Immediately thereafter counsel was changed and new counsel was engaged who had no other alternative but to file application under Section 151 with a prayer to invoke inherent power. Plaintiff permits to file amended plaint. It is specifically contended that in this case the Section 148 of the CPC had no scope which deals with the enlargement of time fixed for time court for doing any act prescribed or allowed by the Court.

9. That apart the provision expressly provided that the Court may enlarge the period but not extending 30 days in total even period originally fixed for granted may have expired in the present case by an order dated May 31st, 2025 application for amendment of plaint was allowed and stipulated time for 14 days is over when the opposite parties failed to comply the direction due to negligence and misconduct of the previously engaged counsel. Meantime when it was detected period of almost one year has elapsed from the date of such original order and therefore question of extending the period under Section 148 of CPC has got any scope to enlarge the time further. It is further contended that the failure to file amended application was not attributable to any willful default for negligence on the part of the litigant and it was wholly due to negligence on the part of the previous counsel and therefore litigant should be suffered or wrong committed by the counsel.

10. Furthermore refusal to permit filing of the amended plaint would have resulted in failure of justice an irreparable prejudice to the opposite parties. In this regard, put reliance upon decision reported in Pahali Raut V. Khulana Bewa, AIR 1985 Orissa 165, Manohar Lal Chopra V. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hirala, AIR 1962 SC 527, Salem Advocate Bar Association V. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344 and K.K. Velusamy V. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275.

11. It is submitted that scope of inherent power has been discussed for the decisions in the Hon’ble Supreme Court where it has been held that inherent powers of Court are not controlled by other provisions of the Court and the Court is free to exercise its inherent power for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

12. Accordingly prayed for dismissal of this revisional application.

13. Heard the submission of both the learned advocates perused the materials-on-record which reflects apparently that the amendment application taken out by the plaintiffs/opposite parties was allowed way back in the month of May, 2025 giving liberty to file the amended plaint within a period of 14 days. It is undisputed that the plaintiffs grossly neglected in complying with such direction as well as provisions enumerated under Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure and accordingly suffered an order of learned Court further disentitling the plaintiffs/opposite parties from having the benefit of order VI Rule 18 of the CPC. On July, 2025 it is also evident from the record that order was never put to challenge and neither of any further application was taken out by the plaintiffs/opposite parties for any further extension by filing any application under Section 151. Such application was taken out only for the evidence of the parties commence after long nine months from date of passing of such order. Learned trial Court while considering the application under Section 151 was of the view that admittedly long time has elapsed after proposed amendment was allowed and the plaintiffs were directed to file the amended provision due to absence of any specific but deals with the situation where the litigant fails to comply with the direction to file amended plaint within time without any negligence on his part to leave with other consequences.

14. The learned Trial Court was further also of the view that it is well settled that parties should not suffer due to failure of his advocate and accordingly considered the prayer.

15. In the decision as relied upon by the learned advocate by the petitioner in AIR 2008 SC 1190 The Hon’ble supreme Court discussed the principles which regulate the exercise of inherent powers by a Court and held ‘In matters with which the CPC does not deal with, the Court will exercise its inherent power to do justice between the parties which is warranted under the circumstances and which the necessities of the case require. If there are specific provisions of the CPC dealing with the particular topic and they expressly or necessary implication exhaust the scope of the powers of the Court or the jurisdiction that may be exercised in relation to matter, the inherent powers of the Court cannot be invoked in order to cut across the powers conferred by the CPC. The inherent powers of the Court are not to be used for the benefit of a litigant who has remedy under the CPC. Similar is the position vis—vis other statutes. The object of Section 151 CPC is to supplement and not to replace the remedies provided for in the CPC. Section 151 CPC will not be available when there is alternative remedy and same is accepted to be a well-settled ratio of law….”

16. In the decision as relied upon further reported in AIR 2005 SC 3070 also in paragraph 75 it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in terms of Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure such amendments are required to be carried out in a pleadings by a party which is obtained to amend his pleadings within the time granting therefore, and if any time was specified within 14 days from the date of passing of the order. The Consequence of failure to amend pleadings within the periods specified therein as laid down in Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the party shall not be permitted to amend his pleadings thereafter unless the time is extended by the Court.

17. In this case, admittedly after such order was passed disentitling the pleadings to avail the benefit Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no application for extension of time was filed and the ground is taken as that of the negligence of the learned conducting advocate. Such extension application therefore, had to be filed by invoking petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By that time, when the pleadings has already commenced.

18. In the decision Pahali Raut (supra) almost similar situation was there when the said cross-examination the scope of Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure is as follows :

               “This is the most direct and relevant authority on the precise point involved in the present case.

               In Pahali Raut, the defendant had obtained leave to amend the written statement but failed to carry out the amendment within the time fixed. An application was later filed seeking extension of time. The Hon’ble Orissa High Court examined the scope of Order VI Rule 18 CPC held as follows :

               a. The last clause of Order VI Rule 18 itself expressly preserves the power of the Court to extend the time. The provision is not absolute.

               b. Even otherwise, Section 151 CPC can be invoked in appropriate cases. The Court described Section 151 as a “savior provision” which mellows the harshness of Order VI Rule 18.

               c. Extension of time is not matter of course; it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

               d. A litigant should not be made to suffer for the fault or negligence of his counsel when the litigant himself is not at fault.

               e. Any inconvenience caused to the other side can be adequately compensated by awarding costs.”

19. In decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in K.K. Velusamy (supra) also Hon’ble Supreme examined the scope of Section 151 CPC in the context of reopening evidence and recalling witnesses after the evidence stage had commenced which are as follows :

               a. Section 151CPC recognizes the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

               b. The power under Section 151 can be exercised even after the stage of evidence has commenced, provided the application is bona fide and the Court is satisfied that it is necessary for the ends of justice.

               c. The power is not be exercised routinely or merely for the asking, but where the facts justify its exercise, the Court is not powerless.

20. On close scrutiny of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, there are remained no room left to held that was gross negligence on the part of the plaintiffs/opposite parties in dealing with the proceedings and in compliance with the direction passed by the learned Court not once but subsequently when the specific order was passed in the Month of July, 2025 debarring plaintiffs to amend the plaint. It is settled proposition of law that once an amendment has lost on merits and prescribed time for incorporating the amendment has elapsed. It would be within the inherent of the Court under Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant an extension but such discretion also put exercised judicially and considering the conduct of the parties seeking an extension if found without the gross negligence or any ulterior motive.

21. Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the object of procedural laws to facilitate the administration of justice and not to frustrate it particularly when no significance prejudiced is caused to the opposite parties. In the instant case as it could be found that the order of amendment was never challenged and there was negligence and at the end there was an utter negligence on the part of the plaintiff/opposite parties in complying with the direction for filing amended plaint. The cross-examination of the PW-1 only started and, therefore, to secure the ends of justice and also to ensure the justice is not defeated by procedural rigidity for misused of legal process.

22. This Court is of the view that the order passed by the learned Trial Court allowing the plaintiff to file the amended plaint did not suffer of any illegality. However, this Court is of the view that the cost of the negligence on the part of the opposite parties, which has caused delay in proceeding with the case should be compensated by paying the cost of Rs.10,000/- to paid to the present/defendants within the period of seven days from the date of uploading of this order in the website.

23. Learned Court is directed to give an opportunity to file the written statement on the said amended plaint to defendants and also to adduce evidence on the amended portion, which was allowed almost a year ago.

24. In view of the above, this revisional application stands disposed of.

25. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the High Court website.