MANGILAL Vs. VIDYA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Lahoti very emphatically and forcefully submits that the application for amendment filed in the suit before the trial Court was with a view to avoid the payment of Court -fees as the valuation of the suit was Rs. 23,000/ - of which a direction was issued to the plaintiffs to pay the deficit Court -fees. To avoid that, the application for amendment was filed so as to reduce the valuation of the Court -fees, such an amendment under law cannot be allowed. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v. Hari Shankar (1987 -II -MPWN 33), when the impugned order was passed, under O. VII. r, 10A and the suit valued at Rs. 23,000/ - was ordered to be transmitted to the Court of Civil Judge, Class I, Mungavali, that Court had no jurisdiction. Therefore, the said Court could not have considered the application for amendment in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Panjoomal v. Dwarka Prasad and others (1967 JLJ SN 30), Shri Lahoti further submitted that the amendment is mala fide not only because the plaintiffs want to avoid the payment of the court -fees, but also for the reason that the suit was instituted in the year 1986 and the plaintiffs, in that suit, have obtained a temporary injunction on 8.4.1986. Therefore, the object of the plaintiffs is nothing but to protract the trial so that they may continue in possession of the agricultural land.

(2.) SHRI S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as the rules have been amended and the Civil Judge Class II has been vested with the powers to try the suit upto the valuation of Rs. 25,000/ - and Civil Judge, Class I has been vested with the powers to try the suit upto Rs. 50,000/ - therefore, the objection of the petitioners, in the subsequent change of the jurisdiction by amendment of the rules has no substance. It was also submitted by Shri Jain, placing reliance on a decision of this Court reported in 1976 MPLJ SN 5 (Indore Lal v. Indore Municipal Corporation) that where an application for amendment of the plaint is made would result in a situation where the claim would exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court, the logical procedure for the trial Court would be to return the plaintiff together with the application for amendment for consideration of that Court which would have jurisdiction to consider the claim if the amendment was allowed. Therefore, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in the order.

(3.) THEREFORE , the petitioners shall be free to satisfy the Court that the amendment is malafide and is with a view to avoid the payment of ad valorem court -fees as the trial Court has to decide the application after hearing parties in accordance with law.