KANHU CHARAN MOHANTY Vs. PRAFULLA CHANDRA MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the learned Addl. District Judge, Jajpur passed in Title Appeal No. 20 of 1991 allowing the plaintiff's prayer for amendment of the plaint has been assailed in this revision.

(2.) The facts necessary for determining the question involved in the revision may be briefly stated thus : Plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 221 of 1988 in the Court of Munsif, Jajpur for permanent as well as mandatory injunction against the defendant in respect of the suit land having an area of Ac. 0.15 dec. out of plot No. 131 under Khata No. 12 of mouza Bhagabatpur. According to the plaintiff, he purchased the aforesaid land by a registered sale deed dated 10.2.1988 on payment of consideration of Rs. 15,000/-. Defendant in the written statement claiming to be the earlier purchaser of Ac. 0.08 dec. from the very same suit land claimed title to it and accordingly urged that the plaintiff's simple suit for injunction is not maintainable in absence of prayer for declaration of title and recovery of possession. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed issues and proceeded with the trial. Both parties led evidence on conclusion whereof it held that without the prayer for declaration of title the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable especially when the defendant disputed his title and consequently dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred the aforesaid title appeal. In appeal, he came up with a petition for amendment of his pleadings by inserting the relief of declaration of title, confirmation of possession and in the alternative recovery of possession. For the purpose of jurisdiction and Court fee, he valued the relief at Rs. 15,000 which was the valuation of the suit land.

(3.) Learned Appellate Court allowed the plaintiff's prayer for amendment and consequently set aside the decree of the Trial Court and directed to take return of the plaint for filing in the proper Court having jurisdiction, since pursuant to the amendment, the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif who tried the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant approached this Court in Civil Revision No. 52 of 1993: The Court upon hearing set aside the order of amendment and remanded the matter to the Appellate Court giving liberty to the plaintiff to file a fresh petition for amendment and the same having been rejected, the plaintiff filed Civil Revision No. 32 of 1996 in this Court. Since the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff did not press the revision contending that the plaintiff would file a better application for amendment, the revision was dismissed as not pressed. It is thereafter the plaintiff filed 3rd application for amendment. In the initial petition for amendment, he had valued the reliefs at Rs. 15,000.- being the value of the suit land, but in the application for amendment, he reduced the same to Rs. 2,100/- keeping the suit within the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Munsif who had passed the decree. Learned Appellate Court on consideration of the submissions raised by the parties, passed the impugned order allowing the plaintiff's prayer for amendment which has been assailed in the present revision.