JAGDISH SINGH Vs. DAIJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts that have given rise to this application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, briefly stated, are these. Jagdish Singh, plaintiff, sued for rendition of accounts alleging that there was partnership in between him and Daljit Singh, defendant, that the defendant was maintaining accounts and was controlling sales and purchases besides doing other acts. It was further alleged that the deed of dissolution was executed on July 1, 1977 subject to finalisation of accounts and inasmuch as the books of accounts were with the defendant and the kacha balance sheet which was prepared by the defendant was not accepted, the defendant was requested to settle the accounts but he went on postponing on one pretext or the other. In para 20 of the plaint, it was stated that the amount due to the plaintiff should be Rs. 80,000.00 and it was added that the exact amount cannot be ascertained till accounts were rendered by the defendant In para 22, all that was mentioned was that fixed court fee of Rs. 20.00 had been affixed but valuation for the purpose of court fee and valuation for purposes of jurisdiction were not specified. Thereafter, 1. A. No. 1740 of 1978 was moved under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that valuation for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction had not been mentioned on account of inadvertent mistake and, therefore, permission may be granted in that behalf. There was no opposition on behalf of the defendant with the result that the request was allowed vide order dated May 10, 1978 and amended plaint was taken on record. According to para of the amended plaint, the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction was mentioned as Rs. 80,000.00 and valuation for court fee was mentioned as Rs. 200.00 . The defendant filed written statement to the amended plaint raising two preliminary objections, one in regard to the plaint having not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction and the second in regard to this Court having no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. There was contest on merits as well. Accordingly, issues were framed on August 29, 1978. Issue No. 1 which was taken up as preliminary issue was in these words:

(2.) On December 17, 1979, when the preliminary objection was taken up for consideration, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that he may be allowed to amend the plaint by fixing valuation for purposes of court fee as Rs. 80,000.00 . Obviously, the purpose was not to join issue on the point of valuation.

(3.) Shri Gian Singh Vohra, learned counsel for the defendant, has opposed the application on the ground that this Court lacks the inherent jurisdiction to allow the amendment. The precise argument is that according to Section 7(iv)(f)ofthe Court Feey Act, 1870, the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 has to follow valuation for purposes of court fee and inasmuch as the relief was valued for purposes of court fee at Rs. 200.00 , the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction should also be Rs. 200.00 . It is submitted that this being the position under law, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit and for that reason cannot entertain the request for amendment of the plaint.