Trial courts cannot refuse applications; maintainability must be determined by a reasoned order.

The petitioner, plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 195 of 2010 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalol, had obtained an order dated 8 August 2026 allowing his application to amend the plaint under Exhibit 104.

The amendment was not carried out within the prescribed 15 days. The petitioner thereafter sought to file an application under Order VI Rule 18 read with Sections 148 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but alleged that the Trial Court refused to accept it.

On 29 August 2026, Respondent No. 1 also filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking recall of the order allowing the amendment. That application remained pending.

The petitioner invoked Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking directions to the Trial Court to accept and adjudicate his application for extension of time and implementation of the amendment. During hearing, the petitioner did not press the prayer challenging the order dated 8 August 2026 and confined the petition to the remaining reliefs.

Whether the Trial Court could refuse to accept the petitioner’s application under Order VI Rule 18 read with Sections 148 and 151 CPC merely because the amendment had not been carried out within the prescribed period.

Whether the High Court should direct the Trial Court to accept and decide the petitioner’s application after hearing all concerned parties.

Whether the pendency of Respondent No. 1’s application seeking recall of the amendment order prevented the petitioner from submitting his application under Order VI Rule 18 CPC.

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Order VI Rule 18 CPC governs the consequences of failure to carry out an amendment within the time prescribed by the Court or within fourteen days where no time is fixed; Sections 148 and 151 CPC empower the Court, subject to law and the interests of justice, to enlarge time and pass necessary orders to secure the ends of justice.

The Court held that there is no procedure under the CPC authorising a Trial Court to refuse to accept an application; if the application is legally untenable or not maintainable, it must be considered and rejected by a reasoned order rather than refused at the filing stage.

The High Court found that the amendment had already been allowed by the Trial Court on 8 August 2026, but the petitioner had failed to carry it out within the stipulated period.

The petitioner’s proposed application under Order VI Rule 18 read with Sections 148 and 151 CPC was therefore a procedural request seeking permission or enlargement of time to implement the amendment, and the Trial Court was required at least to receive and adjudicate it.

The pendency of Respondent No. 1’s recall application did not justify refusing to accept the petitioner’s application.

The Court clarified that acceptance of the application would not amount to granting the relief sought; the Trial Court retained authority to decide its maintainability and merits after hearing all parties.

The Trial Court was directed to accept the petitioner’s application under Order VI Rule 18 read with Sections 148 and 151 CPC, annexed as Annexure-E, and thereafter decide it in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.

The Court did not grant the petitioner’s abandoned prayer challenging the amendment order.

Respondent No. 1 was permitted to approach the High Court by an appropriate application for recall or review within 15 days of receiving the order.

No order was made as to costs, and direct service was permitted.