CHITTAJALLU JANARDHAN RAO Vs. CHITTAJALLU RATNAMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in 0.S.No.140 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif's Court Gudiwada, has preferred this revision against the order dated 29th November, 1983 passed by the District Munsif, allowing I.A.No. 1051 of 1932.

(2.) The plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent, treating the defendant as a tenant. The defendant denied the title and also the tenancy and consequently the plaintiff had to file I.A. No. 1051 of 1932 for amendment of the plaint to convert the suit into one of title. The trial court allowed this petition and called upon the plaintiff to deposit the court fee and it appears that after the amendment was made and court fee deposited, the trial court returned the plaint to the plaintiff to be presented in the proper court as the value of the suit had increased to such an extent that the District Munsif's court, had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In this revision Mr. Haranath, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner/defendant has brought to my notice various judgments, not only of this Court but also of Nagpur, Calcutta and Madras High Courts which are contrary to one another. Ramachandra Rao J. as he then was had held in Padmanabha Talkies Vs. Gowthami Pictures (1) 1971 (1) APLJ, 375, that the correct course open to the District Munsif's Court, would be to return the plaint as well as the petition for amendment to the plaintiff to bs presented in the proper court without passing any orders on the petition for amendment. To the same effect is the judgment of the Njgpur High Court in Lalji Vs. N.irottam (2) AIR 1953, Nag. 273. So far as our High Court is concerned in Ramayyarnma Vs. Kamala- kara Rao (3) 1982 (2) An.W.R. 427, rny learned brother Ramachandra Raju, J, has held that the Munsif Court in which the plaint was initially filed will have to pass orders on the petition for amendment of the plaint arid it is only then when he comes to tho conclusion that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, he will return the plaint to the plaintiff to be presented in the proper Court. To the same effect is the judgment of Partnasarath:, J, reported in B. Ranga Rao Vs. M/s. The American Refrigerator Company (4) ILR 1971, A.P. 188.

(3.) In the light of these contradictions appearing in the rulings of our own High Court, I deem it proper that the matter should bo decided by a Bench of this Court. Hence I refer the matter for consideration of a Bench. The papers will be placed before the Hon'bie The Chief Justice, for the formation of a Bench.