URMILA MANDALAIN Vs. GIRIJA MADALAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the parties, this revision application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

(3.) MR . A.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the petition under Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C, filed by the petitioner, which have been annexed as Annexure -2 to this application and submitted that by the proposed amendment only clerical errors and typing mistakes were prayed to be rectified and, therefore, it is wrong to say that by allowing the said amendment the character of the suit would change. Mr. Sinha, further submitted that according to Regulation -9 of Santhal Parganas Justice Regulation, 1893 a Subordinate Judge has already been conferred jurisdiction to try a suit, the value of which exceeds Rs. 500/ -and, therefore, the learned Court below has wrongly held that by allowing the proposed amendment it will confer him the jurisdiction which he did not have.