VASUDEV GUNDO PATIL Vs. SEETHABAI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition at the instance of the first Defendant in O.S. No. 25 of 1987 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Haveri is directed against the order dated 17.2.2000 on IA -8 in the said suit allowing an application under Order 6, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure seeking for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) BY the said amendment, the Trial Court had permitted the Plaintiff to alter the valuation as had been originally indicated in the plaint, to be enhanced to a sum of Rs. 50,000/ -, the effect of which being that the suit which in the normal course would have been transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Hanagal, can still be retained at the very same Court namely the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Haveri, where the suit had been tried. 4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that O.S. 25 of 1987 had been filed by Smt. Seethabai and Smt. Jayalakshmi against the Petitioner Vasudev Gundo Patil and Smt. Subhadra, second Defendant in the suit seeking for half share in the properties that had fallen to the share of the Plaintiff's father -in -law and for separate possession of the said properties. 5. The defence was that properties had come to the share of the first Defendant -Petitioner under a Will executed by the father -in -law of the first Plaintiff and father of the first Defendant and as such the first Defendant pleaded that he is not liable to give half share of such property to the Plaintiff. 6. In the said suit, the Defendant, it appears, had filed an application praying for an order of temporary injunction IA -IV and the Trial Court had allowed the said application and had granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the Plaintiff from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by the Defendant. The matter had been carried by way of Miscellaneous First Appeal to this Court, initially, by the Plaintiff in the suit and it appears the said Miscellaneous First Appeal had been transferred to the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Dharwar on certain re -arrangement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts and ultimately the Miscellaneous Appeal came to be dismissed confirming the order granted in favour of Defendant in the suit restraining the Plaintiff from interfering with the enjoyment and possession of the suit property etc. 7. While disposing off the said appeal, the learned District Judge had observed and directed the Trial Court, namely the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Haveri, to dispose off the suit within a period of six months thereof, by an order dated 29.1.1999. Thereafter the matter was pending before the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Haveri and that the matter had reached upto the stage of letting in evidence of the Plaintiff and at this stage, because of further re -arrangement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts as per Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1989, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Munsiff came to be raised from Rs. 10,000/ - to Rs. 50,000/ - and as such all suits which had been valued below Rs. 50,000/ - and which had been pending before the Civil Courts were to be statutorily transferred to the Courts of Munsiffs. 8. The amended Act to the Civil Courts, though had come into effect from the year 1989, in view of the pendency of the Miscellaneous First Appeal before the High Court from the year 1988 and thereafter on transfer of the said Miscellaneous First Appeal to the District Court, the appeal being renumbered as Miscellaneous Appeal 223 of 1989 and the matter being disposed of only as on 29.1.1999 and there being an order of stay of further proceedings before the Trial Court during the pendency of the appeal, the original suit O.S. 25 of 1987 continued to remain on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Haveri and the question of transferring it to the Court of the Munsiff cropped up only subsequent to the passing of the order by the II Additional District Judge, Dharwad while disposing off Miscellaneous Appeal 223 of 1989. While disposing off the appeal, the Additional District Judge had made the following observations: The Civil Judge, Haveri is hereby directed to dispose of the original suit within six months positively from the date of this order, after giving opportunity to both sides. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Lower Court on 15.2.1999 to take further instructions without expecting any notice. Officer is directed to send the lower Court records forthwith so as to reach there well in time. 9. The learned Civil Judge, Haveri proceeded with the matter thereafter and evidence on the part of the Plaintiff was almost over. At this stage the parties, perhaps realising certain technical objections that may arise as in the normal course that the suit should have been tried before the Court of the Munsiff at Hanagal which had jurisdiction to try suits upto the pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs. 50,000/ -, an application on behalf of the Plaintiff came to be filed seeking an amendment of the plaint in respect of pecuniary value which had been originally valued at Rs. 29,000/ - to a figure at Rs. 80,666/ -. It appears the obvious intention of this application was to ensure that the suit was being tried before the Court of the Senior Division, Haveri was retained there and there did not arise any necessity for transferring the suit to the Court of Munsiff at Hanagal. 10. The application filed by the Plaintiff appears to have been opposed by the Defendant pointing out that the suit should go before the Court of Munsiff at Hanagal having regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court. One of the arguments advanced on behalf of the Plaintiff -applicant and which has been reiterated before this Court in Civil Revision Petition by Sri M.B. Nargund, learned Counsel for the Respondents is that the learned II Additional District Judge, Dharwad, having given directions while disposing off Miscellaneous Appeal 223 of 1989 which I have extracted earlier, the suit could be tried only before the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Haveri and not by the Court of the Munsiff at Hanagal. 11. Sri M.B. Pavin, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the application under Order 6, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, which is for amendment of the plaint, has been allowed on irrelevant and untenable considerations; that the said provision cannot be utilised for the purpose of manipulating the jurisdiction of the Court and that the learned Trial Judge has committed a material irregularity in allowing the application of this nature only for the purpose of ensuring that the suit is retained before the very Court. 12. Sri M.B. Nargund, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand submits that the Trial Court cannot be said to be a Court without jurisdiction to try a suit of this nature, inasmuch as the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Haveri, is a Court which has concurrent jurisdiction to try a suit even of pecuniary value of below Rs. 50,000/ - and it cannot be construed as a Court without jurisdiction for trying a suit of such nature and in such circumstances, if retention of the suit before the same Court is achieved by allowing such application, there is absolutely no justification for interference in revisional jurisdiction, particularly in the context of the litigation having been dragged on for more than a decade and the Respondent -Plaintiff, who has been making her effort to get her share having been deprived of the same all along and the Petitioner -Defendant having continued to enjoy the suit schedule properties. The learned Counsel urges that the Civil Revision Petition may be dismissed as the order does not cause any injustice to the Petitioner. 13. The question that arises in this revision petition is not as to whether the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Haveri, had jurisdiction to try a suit of this nature, but for what considerations an application under the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure has been entertained. 14. From the narration above and on a reading of the application, it is obvious that the application is made for the purpose of ensuring that the suit remained before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Haveri, without being tossed out from that Court, which could again be counter -productive for the party as the length of litigation would increase in such an eventuality. It was also possible that the application was made for the purpose of obviating any technical objections that may be raised later about the jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Haveri, for trying the original suit valued at a sum below Rs. 50,000/ - initially. 15. Even assuming that the application was made with the best of intentions and not with any ulterior motives, still an application seeking for amendment of the plaint should conform to the well -settled and well -understood principles of amendment of the plaint, can be allowed if the character of the suit is retained, is in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and preventing the parties to follow or indulge in a fresh round of litigation, of course subject to the application being not barred by the law of limitation etc. 16. Unfortunately, in the present instance, no such plea has been put forth in support of the application. The effect of allowing the application was that the suit remained before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Haveri, which in the normal course would have been transferred to the Court of Munsiff at Hanagal, which had the pecuniary jurisdiction to try a suit of this nature. 17. One another important legal principle involved against entertaining applications of this nature is that by allowing such applications by way of amendment to the plaint, it becomes possible to manipulate either retention of a suit or transfer of the suit to either a lower or a higher Court depending upon the pecuniary value, which is against the accepted norms and public policy. It is a well -settled principle that a litigant should not be allowed to manipulate Court proceedings to suit his convenience. Though in the instant case no great injustice has occurred to any of the parties, as a matter of principle, an order of this nature cannot be allowed to stand. The exercise of Court's power under Order 6, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure for a purpose other than for which the provision has been made, amounts to committing a material irregularity and as such an order of this nature cannot be allowed to stand. The learned Trial Judge has taken note of the fact that the subject matter of the suit, namely an agricultural land, which had been valued at Rs. 25,000/ - based on the value as it prevailed in the year 1987 when the suit was filed, and such value having gone up and on the date of filing of the application in the year 1999/2000, this being in the range of Rs. 1,50,000/ - and such increase enables the applicant to alter the valuation by way of amendment and as such allowed the application. Subject matter of the suit is valued on the date of filing of the suit. This valuation need not be and cannot be revised as and when there is an increase in the value and during the pendency of the suit. It is envitable that there will be time gap between the date of filing of the suit and the date of its disposal and it is also possible that the value of the suit properties do increase during the pendency of the suit. The Trial Court ought not to have entertained an application for amendment, which had been made for the purpose mentioned in the order and accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition has to be allowed. 18. Sri M.B. Nargund, learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that though the District Court had directed the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Haveri, to dispose of the original suit within a period of six months, it had not been achieved and the matter had lingered on before that Court. I should also observe that the direction issued by the Additional District Judge, Dharwad, cannot be construed as a mandate to the Civil Judge, Senior Division Haveri. It was a direction issued only for the purpose of impressing upon the urgency and to ensure that the suit was disposed of expeditiously. The learned Additional District Judge did not apply his mind whether the case should go to the Court of the Munsiff, Hanagal, or it should be retained before the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Haveri, from the angle of pecuniary jurisdiction. The order cannot be construed as a mandate to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Haveri alone to try the suit and not by a Court having pecuniary jurisdiction to try that suit. This aspect apart, orders of this nature stipulating a time frame to dispose off the suit are orders in terrorem and are only meant for impressing upon the Trial Court to dispose off the suit expeditiously and cannot be construed as a mandate issued by the Court. Proceedings of one Court cannot be regulated by another Court and they are to be conducted and regulated by the very Court before which the suit is being tried and as per statutory provisions governing the same. Under such circumstances, the Court of Munsiff, Hanagal which has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and in the normal course before which Court this suit has to be tried, definitely can try the suit out of which the above revision petition arises. However, the matter being old, it is impressed upon the Trial Court to ensure that the suit is disposed of as expeditiously as possible and all efforts may be made to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 19. A copy of this order may be sent to the Trial Court immediately and copies may be furnished to the parties also. 20. The Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Haveri may take immediate steps to ensure that the records in the suit O.S. 25 of 1987 are immediately sent to the jurisdictional Court without any loss of time. The parties may appear before the jurisdictional Court as on 15.2.2002 without awaiting for any further Court notice and take further instructions from that Court as on that date. 21. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.2.2000 allowing the application under Order 6, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure is set aside and the said application is dismissed. No costs.