N K VERMA Vs. BATLIBOI AND COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of Shri I.S. Mehta. Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 5.5.1995 in Suit No.1036 of 1993. whereby the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the petitioner's application under order 6 rule 17 read with section 151 Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the written statement.

(2.) The facts in brief may be recapitulated:-

(3.) The petitioner in the written statement has sought two amendments. One amendment is to raise the objection that the suit has not been instituted by a duly constituted attorney or an authorised person It is contended by the petitioner that only recently he learnt that Shri B.M. Lall was neither the constituted attorney ofthe plaintiffs/respondents nor was he authorised to engage an advocate. There was no resolution in his favour. The second amendment sought is in respect of the objection to the valuation ofthe suit for purposes of court fee and pecuniary jurisdiction The petitioner wishes to amend para 15 of the written statement, wherein earlier there was a simple denial of the corresponding para of the plaint with the averment that the suit is wrongly valued for purposes of relief. The petitioner's case is that the annual rent of the premises was Rs.26.400/- and the suit was to be properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction at twelve months'rent and on which basis the suit should have been filed inthe court of the Civil Judge The respondents, with ' a view to seek relief from the High Court had over valued the suit without any basis The suit correctly falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge