SHOBHA VENKAT RAO Vs. K R MAHALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order dated 19th /august 1965 passed by a judge of the Bombay City Civil Court, holding that the value of the subject-matter of the suit was over Rupees 25,000 and the Court therefore, had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and ordering that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court.

(2.) The plaintiff claims to be a licensee of a restaurant knows as Meenakshi Bhuvan and lately known as Central Cafe Udipi, situated in Vishwas Bhuvan, King Edward Road, Parel, Bombay. She appears to have granted a sub-licence in respect of this restaurant to the defendant No. 1 who was running it with the assistance of the defendant No. 2. The plaintiff claims to have terminated the licence of the defendant No. 1 on the ground that he had committed breach of the terms of the sub-licence. She, therefore, filed the present suit against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 only for recovery of possession of the said restaurant and a sum of Rs. 3,500 as arrears of licence fees and future mesne profits. She filed the suit on 3rd March 1959. in the suit she took out a notice for motion and got an interim order for appointment of receiver. When he receiver went to take possession, he found that the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were in possession. The plaintiff thereafter joined them as, party defendants to the suit. Defendant No. 3 is the plaintiff's licensor. Defendant No. 4 is a fresh licensee from the defendant No. 3. It appears that in order to spite the plaintiff the defendant No. 1 had handed over possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff's licensor who in turn had put a new licensee in possession.

(3.) The defendants filed their written statement. No defence as to jurisdiction was taken. Issues were settled in July 1963. It appears from the issues that no issue was raised as to jurisdiction. The suit proceeded to trial. Both parties led evidence and the matter was being pears the defendants relied upon a statement in the evidence by the constituted attorney of the plaintiff indicating that the market value of the property of which possession was sought to be recovered in the suit was over Rs. 25,000. The learned Judge appointed the Registrar of the Court to hold an enquiry and make a report as to whereof was sought to be recovered evidently with a view ultimately to determine he value himself under the provisions of Section 12 of the Court-fees Act, 1870, which was in force at the date of the institution of the suit. The learned Registrar made a report in which he held that the total value of the premises, possession whereof was claimed in prayer (a) of the plaint, was Rs. 30,336.75, namely. Rs. 13, 850 being the value of the premises and Rs. 16,486.75, being the value of the movable property sought to be recovered. The plaintiff field objections to this objections. Probably finding that the learned judge was inclined to accept the valuation made by the Registrar, the plaintiff presented a draft amendment and sought leave to amend the plaint. This draft amendment is at page 103 of the paper-book. By this draft amendment the plaintiff sought to abandon a part of the claim so as to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of the Court. The learned Judge, however did not grant this amendment and ultimately passed the order, which is the subject-matter of this appeal.