Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Amendment of plaint can not be refused merely on the ground it exceeds pecuniary jurisdiction = seeking to amend the prayer of the plaint, so as to include the relief of declaration of title -Junior Civil Judge has refused to entertain the amendment petition on the ground that if the amendment is allowed, it would oust the jurisdiction of the Junior Civil Judge= In my opinion, it is not correct approach by the learned Junior Civil Judge. If there are grounds to allow the amendment petition, the same cannot be refused merely on the ground of exceeding of its jurisdiction. Therefore, the matter needs to be remanded back for fresh disposal and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

CRP 581 / 2016 CRPSR 2849 / 2016 CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONER RESPONDENT
DAMARASINGI SREENU & 3 OTHERS VS ALABONI NARASI & ANOTHER

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.581 of 2016
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is filed questioning the correctness of
the order, dated 21.08.2015, in I.A.No.820/2014 in O.S.No.93/2013, on
the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Viziangaram.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs.
The application is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 6
Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the prayer of the plaint, so as to
include the relief of declaration of title. The learned Junior Civil Judge
has dismissed the said application, holding that the suit is valued for
Rs.1,50,000/- being 3/4
th market value for the total value of the
property i.e., Rs.2,13,320/- and the court below is not having pecuniary
jurisdiction to try the suit as it exceeded Rs.1,00,000/- as on the date of
filing of the petition.
What could be gathered from the above order is that the learned
Junior Civil Judge has refused to entertain the amendment petition on
the ground that if the amendment is allowed, it would oust the
jurisdiction of the Junior Civil Judge. In my opinion, it is not correct
approach by the learned Junior Civil Judge. If there are grounds to
allow the amendment petition, the same cannot be refused merely on
the ground of exceeding of its jurisdiction. Therefore, the matter needs
to be remanded back for fresh disposal and the impugned order is
liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.08.2015 is set aside
and the matter is remanded back to the Court below directing to
consider and dispose of the matter afresh, in accordance with law,
without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order,
and in the event of amendment being allowed and if it exceeds the
jurisdiction of the Court below, the plaint shall be returned to the
plaintiffs for being represented before the proper court.
The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order
as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed
in consequence.
__________________
M.S.K.JAISWAL,J
Date: 26.02.2016
Dsr

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.