GOWARAMMA AND ORS. Vs. JAYARAMAIAH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs and defendants in OS No. 395/2001 filed IA Nos. 26 & 27 under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of plaint and written statement respectively. The petitioners were not parties to the suit. The petitioners claim, they were the family members of the joint family and they are entitled for partition. The suit was decreed and challenging the said judgment and decree, respondent No. 6 filed regular appeal and the lower appellate court remanded the matter to the trial court. On the application filed by the petitioners, they were impleaded as party defendants in the suit. The trial court allowed the IA for amendment filed by the plaintiffs, but rejected the application filed by the petitioners for amendment of written statement.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial court has erred in rejecting the application IA No. 27 on the sole ground that it exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction, in the absence of valuation slip filed by the petitioners and there was no basis for the court below to say that the amendment, if allowed, it exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction. It is submitted, even if it exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction, the proper course would have been to allow the application and thereafter affording opportunity to both the parties to put -forth their case on the pecuniary jurisdiction, the court below has to take decision in the matter. The impugned order passed on the sole ground that the amendment exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction is unsustainable. Even if the pecuniary jurisdiction exceeds, the court below is at liberty to return the plaint to be presented before the proper court. In support of this, the learned counsel referred decision of the Supreme Court reported in : AIR 1996 SC 1087 Para -3 (Gurucharan Singh v. Bhag Singh & others) and another judgment reported in : ILR 2007 KAR 5010Para -7 (Syed Imtiyaz v. Milka Vatsala).

(3.) I have heard both. The petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the order allowing IA No. 26 and rejecting their application IA No. 27. The plaintiffs by way of amendment wanted to add some more properties, which is allowed by the trial court. The suit is one for partition. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the court below in allowing the said application.