ADYA KRISHNA PRASAD Vs. SIOLAL CHAMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 15, 15 (a), 15 (b), 16 and 17 have moved this Court in revision against the order dated the 23rd of March 1950, passed by the Munsiff, 2nd Court, Siwan, whereby he held that he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and that the Court-fee paid was sufficient.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed the suit for redemption in which the above order was passed. The redemption suit was valued by them at Rs. 400/- and Court-fee was paid on that valuation in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 (ix) of the Court-Fees Act. In the plaint as filed, the plaintiffs had also claimed mesne profits to the tune of Rs. 1,744/- and future mesne profits. The Court below has held that the Court-fee paid in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 (ix) of the Court-Pees Act was sufficient, and that he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

(3.) Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, appearing for the petitioners, contended before us that, by inclusion of the claim of Rs. 1,744/-, the suit goes beyond the jurisdiction of the Munsiff, 2nd Court, Siwan, who has jurisdiction to try suits up the value of Rs. 1,000/- only. He submitted that, if subsequently it is found that the Munsiff had no jurisdiction, all the proceedings taken before him will be set aside, and his clients will be put to loss unnecessarily. He, therefore, suggested that, if the plaintiffs reduced the claim for mesne profits to such an amount as to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff, the question of want of jurisdiction will not arise. The learned Advocate for the plaintiffs opposite party, has, in accordance with that suggestion, filed a petition for amendment of the plaint, by which the claim for mesne profits has been tentatively reduced to Rs. 500/-from the original figure of Rs. 1,744/-. We have permitted the plaintiffs to amend the plaint in the light of the petition for amendment filed on their behalf. The plaint will, therefore, be amended by the order of this Court.