HARISH KUMAR CHAUDHARY Vs. VIMAL WADHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to the revision petition are: That the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent as well as mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the possession of Barsati Room and Bath Room. The plaintiff later on wanted to amend the plaint by amending the relief clause regarding permanent as well as mandatory injunction into a suit for possession, the valuation of which was fixed at Rs.10,000.00 . p73 There is no dispute between the parties that the jurisdiction of Shri A.K. Chaturvedi, Sub Judge Fourth Class, was only upto Rs.1,000.00 . Therefore, in case the amendment is allowed, it will result in ousting the jurisdiction of the learned Sub Judge. The learned Sub Judge has, therefore, dismissed the application for amendment relying upon a decision in E.R.R.M.H.S. Committee v. P. Atchayya (AIR 1957 Andhra Pradesh 10) which lays down that the court cannot permit a plaint sought to be amended as to ousts its own jurisdiction. The present revision has been filed against this order.

(2.) Mr. Marwaha, counsel for the appellant submits that the consenses of various High Courts in the matter is that the Court in which the amendment is applied for and which is competent to entertain the original suit can decide the amendment application of the plaint even if it may involve ouster of jurisdiction of that Court. After the amendment is allowed, the plaint can be returned for presentation before the proper court under Order 7 Rule 10. If the amendment results in the ouster of jurisdiction of that court, after the amendment is carried out, the plaint can be returned.

(3.) Mr. Munjal, however, on the other hand, argues that the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court which has been relied upon by the trial court is correct that the court cannot permit a suit to be amended so as to oust its own jurisdiction. He relies upon Rachhya Singh and another v. Ram Ran Bijai Prasad Singh and others (AIR 1973 Patna 179).