Skip to content


Makireddy Ramayyamma Vs. Menti Kamalakararao - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 1144 of 1980
Judge
Reported inAIR1983AP11
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - 0rder 6, Rule 17
AppellantMakireddy Ramayyamma
RespondentMenti Kamalakararao
Appellant AdvocateC. Poornaiah, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateR.V. Subba Rao, Adv.
Excerpt:
civil - amendment in plaint - order 6 rule 17 of code of civil procedure, 1908 - suit for eviction filed by plaintiff - subsequently plaintiff applied for amendment of plaint - district munsif refused to allow amendment - alleged that scope of suit will be altered and that suit had already reached at stage of trial - revision before high court - delay was not such as to warrant refusal of amendment applied for - in case after amendment valuation of suit exceeds pecuniary jurisdiction of district munsif same will be returned for presentation in proper court - impugned order set aside - district munsif directed to permit plaintiff to amend plaint. - - it is open to the district munsif if he is not satisfied with the valuation proposed by the plaintiff......at rupees 7,000/- and for purposes of court-fee, he valued the property at rs. 5,250/- the learned district munsif refused to allow the amendment on the ground that the scope of the suit will be altered and that the amendment was applied for when the suit reached the stage of trial. the plaintiff who initially filed the suit on the basis that the defendant was a tenant sought the amendment to recover possession of the property on the basis of title. the plaintiff has not put forward any new case. he is only asserting his title to the property and the only asserting his title to the property and the only effort he was making was that even if the defendant is not a tenant, the defendant has to deliver possession of the property in favour of the plaintiff and pay the amount as damages for.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the respondent-defendant and for recovering certain amount as arrears of rent. As the defendant denied the tenancy, the plaintiff applied for amendment of the plaint seeking relief of possession and for recovering the amount in the alternative as damages for use and ocupation. In the proposed amendment he valued the property at Rupees 7,000/- and for purposes of court-fee, he valued the property at Rs. 5,250/- the learned district Munsif refused to allow the amendment on the ground that the scope of the suit will be altered and that the amendment was applied for when the suit reached the stage of trial. The plaintiff who initially filed the suit on the basis that the defendant was a tenant sought the amendment to recover possession of the property on the basis of title. The plaintiff has not put forward any new case. He is only asserting his title to the property and the only asserting his title to the property and the only effort he was making was that even if the defendant is not a tenant, the defendant has to deliver possession of the property in favour of the plaintiff and pay the amount as damages for use and occupation. The delay is not such as to warrant refusal of the amendment applied for. It appears from the order under revision that the district Munsif entertained a doubt as to the real market value of the property. It is open to him to assess the real market value and then require the plaintiff to pay the defict court-fee if any. It is submitted thatif the property was correctly valued. It will take the suit beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the district Munsif's Court and the amendment should not therefore be allowed. In support of this submission reference is made to the decision reported in padmanabha Talkies v. M/s. Gowthami pictures, (1971) 1 APLJ 375 Ramachandra Rao, J., held that in such cases the proper procedure is to return the plaint and the amendment petition for presentation to the proper Court having jurisdiction for consideration of the amendment application. Parthasarathi, J., in B. Ranga Rao v. American Refrigerator company, ILR (1971) Andh pra 188 expressed a contrary view. According to parthasarathi, J., the District Munsif in whose Court the plaint was originally presented continues to have jurisdiction till the amendment is allowed after the amendment is allowed, it is for the district Munsif to consider whether he still retains the pecuniary jurisdiction to continue with the trial of the suit. If the district Munsif finds the suit to be beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction, it is for the district Munsif to return the plaint for presentation to the Court having pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit with the amended plaint. This view expressed by parthasarathi, J., is based on an earlier decision of the madras High Court reported in Bhavani v. Mangamma (AIR 1949 Mad 208) and the same view was also expressed by the madras High Court in M. Allauddin v. P.S. Lakshminarayanan, : AIR1970Mad247 . In between the two conflicting views expressed by Ramachandra Rao, J., and parthasarathi, J., I prefer to agree with the view expressed by parthasarathi, J., as it is in accordance with the practice that is uniformly followed in the subordinate courts in matters of amendment of pleadings. When the suit which was originally filed could be tried by the District Munsif, it is only the district Munsif that is competent to decide whether the amendment applied for should be allowed or refused on merits. The consideration as to whether subsequent to the amendment the district Munsif would still continue to have pecuniary jurisdiction does not arise at that stage. If as a result of the amendment the suit valuation exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the district Munsif, he would naturally return the plaint for presentation in the proper Court. It will not therefore be right for the district Munsif to refuse the amendment merely on the basis that if the amendment is allowed the suit would be beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the district Munsif is directed to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint. It is open to the district munsif if he is not satisfied with the valuation proposed by the plaintiff. To get the property valued. If on such revaluation he finds that he still has pecuniary jurisdiction, he will proceed with the trial of the suit after giving an opportunity to the defendant to file any additional written statement regarding the valuation of the property. The Revision is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.

Revision allowed.


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