SITLA BUX SINGH Vs. MAHABIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision from an order allowing an amendment of the valuation given in the plaint. The defendant is the applicant in this revision. The suit which the plaintiffs, brought was for redemption under Section 12, U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act. In the plaint, as originally presented to the Court, the principal amount secured on the basis of the mortgage for the redemption of which the plaintiffs were suing, was shown as Rs. 1,000. This was subsequently brought down to Rs. 564. In his examination before the framing of the issues one of the plaintiffs stated that the amount secured was below Rs. 500. Thereafter the defendant pointed out that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the provisions of Section 10, U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act. The plaintiffs thereupon applied for an amendment of their plaint and this was allowed by the leaned munsif. The present revision is directed against this order of the leaned munsif.

(2.) The question which I have had to consider is whether the order of the leaned munsif allowing an amendment of the plaint is revisable at the present stage by this Court or not. It has been argued that after it had been made clear by the plaintiffs that the principal amount secured was less than Rs. 500, the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is urged that the proper course for the Court in the circumstances which had arisen was to return the plaint for presentation to the revenue Court which alone has jurisdiction under Section 10, U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act, to try suits in which the principal amount secured is leas than Rs. 500.

(3.) A preliminary objection has, however, been raised to this revision. It is that no revision lies inasmuch as there is no case decided within the meaning of that expression, according to the rulings of this Court. I have been referred by the leaned Counsel for the opposite party to the Full Bench case in Mt. Suraj Pali v. Ariya Pretinidhy Sabha U.P in which it was held that No revision lies from an order passed under Order 6, Rule 117, Civil P.C. refusing to allow an amendment of a pleading. The opinion expressed in that case was that Cases where the amendment comes under some other Order of the Code, for example, addition or substitution of parties, or the striking off a pleading, may amount to a Case decided; but an order passed purely under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, is not What has happened in this case is that an amendment has been permitted. It cannot be said that permitting an amendment means the addition or substitution of parties or the striking off of a pleading. It cannot, therefore, be said that it amounts to a case decided within the meaning of Section 115, Civil P.C. It has been repeatedly pointed out that no complete and exhaustive definition of the word case is possible; but it clearly is the case that the word "Case", is not synonymous with the word "suit". The word "case", as was observed by Sulaiman, C.J., however, cannot be given such a wide meaning as to cover every interlocutory order passed by a Court during the trial of a suit.