HARIN SHAH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein has challenged the impugned order dated 22nd April, 2008 passed by Mr. R.B. Singh, Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, allowing the respondent's application under Order VI rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to amend its plaint. The facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for declaration of respondent's right to immovable property, for possession and for recovery of damage for wrongful use and occupation of the said property. The written statement was filed by the petitioner (defendant in the suit). A specific objection was raised by the petitioner in the written statement stating that the suit filed by the respondent was under valuation as the value of the suit was about Rs. 53.50 lac. In view of the statement made in the written statement and in order to avoid any technical objection, the respondent wanted to amend the valuation of the suit property to Rs. 53.50 lac as well as to bring on record the subsequent events which were necessary in order to go into the root of the matter. The following amendments were sought by the respondent in the plaint:

(2.) THE application filed by the respondent was allowed by the impugned order dated 22nd April, 2008, subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/ -. It is not disputed by the parties that in view of the increase of pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit has been transferred to this Court. The submission of the petitioner now is that once the amendment passed in respect of increase of pecuniary jurisdiction in the suit, the learned Additional District Judge was ceased of the suit proceedings and he was not competent to decide the part of amendment wherein the respondent wanted to bring certain additional facts.

(3.) AS far as the objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after passing the order to increase the pecuniary jurisdiction, the learned trial Court was not competent to decide the remaining part of the amendment. The said arguments are also without any force in view of the facts and circumstances in the present case, as both the amendments sought by the respondent in a single application, as far as additional information/events which are sought to be brought on record by the respondent are concerned, it is difficult to know that by deciding the application whether the relief of additional facts are allowed to be brought on record or firstly, the amendment on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction was considered and decided. It was a composite order. Both amendments are decided simultaneously. I do not agree with the petitioner's counsel that the remaining part of amendment ought to have been decided by this Court once the suit is transferred on account of pecuniary jurisdiction, as I feel that the issue is now become very technical in nature in nature in the present case.