PONNUMANI & OTHERS Vs. NARAYANAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S. 113 of 1976 pending before the Munsiff's Court, Palghat. The revision is directed against the order dated 17 -8 -1984 allowing the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint, under Order 6 rule 17, C.P.C. The suit as originally framed was one for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing into the property, as the right of the defendant as a tenant arose for determination in the suit. That question was referred for the decision of the Land Tribunal concerned. The Land Tribunal answered the reference against the defendant. The plaintiff thereafter filed I.A 1225 of 1984 on 31 -7 -1984 for leave to amend the plaint. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant trespassed into the property, after the suit. The plaintiff by amendment sought recovery of possession of the property. Consequent to the amendment proposed, the valuation of the suit was also sought to be amended, The suit instituted in 1976 was originally valued at Rs. 450/ -. The amended valuation was Rs. 14, 650/ - The Court below allowed the application for amendment overruling the objections of the defendant. Being aggrieved the defendant has preferred the revision.

(2.) THE main argument advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner is that the Court below had no jurisdiction to allow the amendment. It is said that the amendment if allowed will relate back to the date of the suit and on allowing the amendment proposed by the plaintiff the Court would be deprived of its jurisdiction and in such a case the proper course for the Court was to return the plaint as well as the application for amendment for presentation before the proper Court. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners placed reliance on the decisions in Ramanna v. Amireddi (A.I.R. 1931 Mad 67) and Lalji v. Narottam (A.I.R. 1953 Nag 273) where the view held is that when a Court is faced with the question of allowing the amendment which taken together with the original claim exceeds its pecuniary jurisdiction, it is, in effect trying a suit beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction. This view had been dissented from by other High Courts (See Kundan Mal v. Thikana Siryari ( : A.I.R. 1959 Raj 146) (Patel Construction & Co. v. S.R. Amutakh : A.I.R. 1973 Guj 283). This Court has also expressed a contrary view in Sreedharan V.P.S. Job ( : A.I.R. 1969 Ker 75) where the identical question directly arose for decision. In that case Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. Said: -

(3.) It has also been pointed out relying on the decision in Clara v. Augustine (1984 K.L.T. 377) that once a suit has been instituted the parties have a vested right of appeal and the amendment if allowed by the Court would seriously affect that right, as the amendment relates back to the date of the suit. This decision is distinguishable as it relates to the forum for the appeal. That question does not arise at the present stage in this suit. It is also to be pointed out that the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Munsiff stand raised upto Rs. 15,000/ - even before 31 -7 -1984 the date on which the application for amendment was filed, It cannot therefore be said that when the application is allowed and the plaint is amended as proposed the jurisdiction of the Court is ousted. Therefore no question of return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court would arise in the present case when the amendment is allowed. It has not been argued before me that the amendment proposed is opposed to law except for the fact that the application is belated. It is well settled that an amendment of the pleadings can be allowed at any stage if such amendment is necessary for a proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. In the present suit, the matter had been pending before the Land Tribunal and it cannot be said that there had been any lapses on the part of the plaintiff in not filing the application earlier. It cannot also be said that prejudices would be caused to the defendant by the proposed amendment of the plaint. The Court below was right in having allowed the application. The order does not require to be interfered with. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with costs to the respondent.