T H YASHAWANTA Vs. T J JAGADEESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER passed by the Civil Judge, Tarikere dated 2nd October, 1996 is assailed. On the request of both the learned Counsels, the petitions are disposed off at orders stage.

(2.) I. A. III filed by the plaintiff in all the three suits pending before the Civil Judge were allowed. I. A. IV filed by the first defendant in O. S. No. 68 of 1995 and O. S. No. 69 of 1995 under Order 7, Rule 10 read with Sections 6 and 15 of the CPC were dismissed. Two points were considered by the Civil Judge:

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners who are the defendants in the suits filed, submitted that the Civil Judge was not justified in rejecting the prayer for filing their fresh written statement and adduce fresh evidence ignoring the evidence which was recorded by the Munsiff who was having no jurisdiction. The learned Counsel submitted that there is lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, the proceeding taken were without jurisdiction. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that initially the suit was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, but the plaint was transferred to the Court of Munsiff as the valuation was stated to be less than Rs. 20,000/ -. The Munsiff subsequently found that the valuation is more than Rs. 50,000/- and therefore he returned the plaint for submission to the Court having the jurisdiction after recording evidence. After the plaint is returned, it is submitted it is not the continuation of the proceedings as has been held in the case of Amar Chand Inani v Union of India, and that the petitioners were entitled to file fresh written statement in the Court having jurisdiction and adduce evidence after the plaint was submitted to the Court having the jurisdiction.