BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. NARAYANAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the defendant in O. S.113 or 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 O.6 R.17, C, P. C.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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 decision in Ramanna v. Amireddi ( AIR 1931 Mad. 67 ) and Lalji v. Narattam ( AIR 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 (AIR 1959 Raj. 146,) Patel Construction & Co. v. S. R. Amulakh (AIR 1973 Guj. 283)). This Court has also expressed a contrary view in Sreedharan v. P. S. Job ( AIR 1969 Ker. 75 ) where the identical question directly arose for decision. In that case Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. said:-