AMULYA RATAN CHOWDHURI Vs. RAM NALINI CHAKRAVARTTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule arises out of the Plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint. The plaint was originally valued at Rs. 8,584 and ad valorem com(Sic) was paid thereon, but thereafter, upon an enquiry (Sic) Section 8C of the Court-Fees Act, the court directed the Plaintiff to revise the valuation to Rs. 67,040 and put in the additional ad valorem court-fee upon the said valuation by July 16, 1952. Thereafter, upon the Plaintiff's applications, made from time to time, the date for revising the valuation and paying the additional court-fee -was extended to August 25, 1952.

(2.) On August 18, 1952, the Plaintiff made the present application for amendment of the plaint and apparently, the position is that if the application for amendment be allowed, the valuation would be considerably reduced. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, has refused to consider the Plaintiff's prayer for amendment of the plaint, as, in his opinion, the said prayer could not be considered until the Plaintiff had complied with the order of the court regarding revision of valuation and payment of additional court-fee. In this view of the matter, the learned Subordinate Judge has deferred consideration of the Plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint until the valuation is revised to Rs. 67,040 and proper court-fees are paid on this revised valuation. Against this order the present Rule is directed.

(3.) In support of the view taken by him the learned Subordinate Judge has referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Midnapur Zemindary Company Ltd. v. The Secretary of State for India, 1916 44 ILR(Cal) 352 . That case, however, has no application to the facts of the present case, as there the plaint had already been rightly rejected before the prayer for its amendment was made. In that case the plaint was rejected by the trial court for noon-payment of requisite court-fee upon the plaint valuation. There was an appeal to this Court from the said order of rejection and in the course of hearing of the appeal a prayer for amendment of the plaint was made. Their Lordships having found that the order of rejection of the plaint was right on the merits refused to entertain the prayer for amendment of the plaint. It seems to us that, in the case cited, the position was that there was in law no plaint before the court and, accordingly, the prayer for amendment could not be entertained. That appears to be the proper reading of the case. The decision, therefore, was perfectly correct but the case is distinguishable and cannot apply to the facts before us.