MUTHU NAICKEN Vs. MARIAPPA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of an interlocutory order passed in a suit filed by the respondent for redemption of an 'othi' dated 3-5-1899. He prayed for a decree directing the defendants to receive the 'othi' amount of Rs. 300 and to deliver possession of the properties in Schedule A. 2. In the alternative he prayed for delivery of possession of item 2 of A. 2 schedule and partition of items 1 and 3 of A. 2 schedule into four shares and delivery of possession of three shares to him. This was because there was a claim on behalf of defendant 2 that he had become entitled to a fourth share in these two items. We are not concerned with the other prayers. He valued the reliefs A and B in the principal amount of the 'othi' and for the alternative relief of partition and possession, he valued the relief under Article 17-B, Court-fees Act. As higher court-fee was payable on the main relief of redemption of the entire property, that court-fee was paid and? no court-fee was paid on the alternative relief. Defendant 2 raised objections as regards the valuation of the suit claim and the jurisdiction of the Court. Two of the issues were, therefore, heard as preliminary issues, namely, issues Nos. 14 and 15. They run as follows :

(2.) A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. M. S. Vaidhyanatha Aiyar on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent that no revision petition would lie on a mere finding which allowed the suit to go on. Assuming that this would be the general practice of this Court relating to more or less the merits, it has been the well established practice of this Court to interfere with an order relating to court-fee and jurisdiction even though the decision on these questions of the lower Court were in favour of the plaintiff. It is only when the question related entirely to court-fee and did not involve any question of jurisdiction that this Court had held that it would not interfere at the instance of the defendant. We are not, therefore, impressed with the preliminary objection,

(3.) I do not think that the real quarrel of the petitioner is with the order allowing an amendment of the plaint. It is really against the findings on issues Nos. 14 and 15. The amendments which have been allowed do not change the cause of action on which the suit was originally brought. They do not introduce new pleas. Whether they clarify anything or not it is not for me to say. All that I can say is that the amendments appear to be quite innocuous. In any event I cannot say that the learned District Munsif erred so grossly in the exorcise of his discretion that I should interfere.