Belated amendment after expiry of permitted time is barred absent extension; unexplained delay and lack of diligence defeated relief.

Where leave to amend had been granted but the amendment was not carried out within the time fixed, Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure barred filing it later unless the court extended time. The Tribunal found no such extension and held that the specific procedural restriction prevailed over general provisions on enlargement of time or condonation of delay. The explanation that counsel and clerk were negligent was rejected because no credible evidence showed prompt instructions, follow-up, or due diligence. The delay of 495 days was treated as inordinate and unexplained, so the request to permit the belated amendment failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 495 days in carrying out the permitted amendment could be condoned and the amendment allowed to be filed belatedly.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that once leave to amend had been granted and no amendment was carried out within the time fixed, the restriction under Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applied. In the absence of any time extension by the Court, amendment could not be permitted after expiry of the prescribed period. The plea that the delay occurred due to negligence of counsel and clerk was found unacceptable because no credible evidence of prompt instructions, follow-up, or due diligence was produced. The long delay was also treated as inordinate and unexplained, and the general provisions relating to enlargement of time and condonation of delay were held inapplicable in the face of the specific procedural bar.

Conclusion: The delay was not condonable and the request to permit the belated amendment failed.

---