(WUPPULURU) NEELACHALAM Vs. NARASINGA DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks to revise the judgment of the District Judge, Ganjam, in A.S. No. 283 of 1926.

(2.) He filed O.S. No. 131 of 1926 on 6 January 1925 and he was ordered to pay Rs. 57-15-0 to make up the proper court-fee. Instead of doing so he reduced the claim and returned the plaint with a court fee of Rs. 37 which was then correct. The District Judge held that he had not obeyed the order of the lower Court and therefore the original plaint could not have the same effect, as if the proper Court- fee had been paid at the outset. The point is important because if the amended plaint is to be treated as a fresh and distinct document it will be time barred. The original plaint could be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, if the plaintiff on being required to supply the requisite stamp paper failed to do so. In this case the plaintiff did supply the correct stamp in the sense that he finally produced a correct court-fee, though it was not the fee that the unamended plaint would have required.

(3.) The view of the learned Judge is that the plaintiff ought not to have amended the plaint without permission; but it is difficult to see why permission is required. A plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim to bring it within the Court's jurisdiction (Order 2, Rule 2) and it seems equally open to him to relinquish a portion in order to bring it within a certain court-fees.