RAMDAYAL Vs. JANKI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 14.11.1995, passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Durg in Civil Suit No. 2 -A/93.

(2.) THE impugned order dated 14.11.1995 is liable to be set aside on the short ground that in the original plaint it is stated that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed in respect of 0.80 acres of land. The valuation of the aforesaid land was Rs. 1,40,000/ - (Rupees One Lakh Forty Thousand). However, the non -applicant -plaintiff paid court fees of Rs. 300/ - (Rupees Three Hundred) on the valuation of injunction. The applicants -defendants, therefore, objected to adoption of this cause instead paying the proper court fees. An application for amendment under Order 16 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was made. The suit was sought to be converted into a suit for specific performance of contract. The argument of learned counsel for the application is that the original suit, filed by the applicants -defendants, could not be tried by the Additional District Judge, Durg, as the initial valuation of the suit land was more than Rs. 1,40,000/ - and the applicants -defendants could not have arbitrarily valued the suit land at Rs. 300/ - for the purpose of permanent injunction. Since the Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the case, it could not pass any order on an amendment application.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the contention of learned counsel for the applicants -defendants has to be accepted in view of the decision in the case of Lalji Ranchhoddas v. Narottam Ranchhoddas, reported in AIR 1953 Nagpur 273. The decision of Nagpur High Court is binding on this Court as this Court is successor Court of the Nagpur High Court under the States Re -organisation Act. The view of Division Bench in that case was that a Court, which has no initial jurisdiction, cannot invoke that jurisdiction by ordering an amendment because it will be acting without jurisdiction in entertaining an application for amendment which will out the jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, the proper course in such a matter was for the trial Court to return the plaint without considering the application for amendment in exercise of its power under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC for presentation to the proper Court. No decision has been pointed out to me which is taken by a larger Bench of the Nagpur High Court in the case of Lalji Ranchhoddas, AIR 1953 Nagpur 273 (supra). This Court is bound by that decision and, therefore, it has no option but to allow this revision by setting aside the impugned order dated 14.11.1995.