Skip to content


H.C. Khan and anr. Vs. Purni Agarwallani and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject;Civil
CourtGuwahati High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 152 of 1951
Judge
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 6, Rule 17 - Order 23, Rule 1
AppellantH.C. Khan and anr.
RespondentPurni Agarwallani and anr.
Advocates:S.M. Lahiri and K.P. Bhattacharjee, Advs.
DispositionPetition allowed
Prior history
Ram Labhaya, J.
1. This petition of revision arises out of suit for possession of a house and some land. The claim included also a prayer for recovery of rent. The jurisdiction value of the suit was Rs. 1,320. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Munsiff at Shillong who can try suits up to the value of Rs.1,000. The value of the suit thus exceeded the limits of his pecuniary jurisdiction. Prom the side of the defendants, the objection was raised to the jurisdiction of the Court. The pla
Excerpt:
- .....in question are obviously without jurisdiction and therefore cannot stand. the orders are cancelled. the amendment made shall not take effect. this petition is allowed. the case shall be remanded to the court of the learned munsiff with the direction that the plaint shall be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to a court of competent jurisdiction.
Judgment:

Ram Labhaya, J.

1. This petition of revision arises out of suit for possession of a house and some land. The claim included also a prayer for recovery of rent. The jurisdiction value of the suit was Rs. 1,320. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Munsiff at Shillong who can try suits up to the value of Rs.1,000. The value of the suit thus exceeded the limits of his pecuniary jurisdiction. Prom the side of the defendants, the objection was raised to the jurisdiction of the Court. The plaintiff applied to the Court for the amendment of the plaint by reducing jurisdictional value of the suit in order to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff. His prayer was that he may be allowed to withdraw his claim for rent from the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit for the part of the claim withdrawn.

The learned Judge allowed withdrawal of the claim for rent with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of this part of the claim. The plaint was amended in consequence of this order. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order permitting amendment of the plaint and the subsequent order accepting the amended plaint were without jurisdiction. He has relied on Tirkha v. Ghasi Ram, A.I.R. 1935 ALL. 842 in support of his contention. The case fully supports the view put forward. The contention that the order allowing the amendment of the plaint is without jurisdiction is sound and ought to prevail.

The learned Judge has passed orders which involved exercise of jurisdiction which he did not possess. He did not merely permit the plaintiff to amend his plaint by reducing his claim. He also permitted him to withdraw the claim with leave to institute a fresh suit. This order is covered by Civil P. C., Order 23, Rule 1 and this would amount to exercising jurisdiction in suit which he had no power to hear. The orders in question are obviously without jurisdiction and therefore cannot stand. The orders are cancelled. The amendment made shall not take effect. This petition is allowed. The case shall be remanded to the Court of the learned Munsiff with the direction that the plaint shall be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to a Court of competent jurisdiction.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //