Skip to content


Gautam Dev Vs. Lila Wati - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCommercial
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Miscellaneous (Main) Appeal No. 75 of 1967
Judge
Reported in3(1967)DLT697
ActsConstitution of India - Article 227; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 115
AppellantGautam Dev
RespondentLila Wati
Advocates: L.K. Gupta, Adv
Cases ReferredAswini Kumur Pramanik v. Dominion of India
Excerpt:
it was held that if there was an error on the part of subordinate court with reference to a particular case, it was nto obligatory on the part of high court to interfere with the order since the jurisdiction the high court was only discretionary under section 115 of the civil procedure code, 1908. - .....has been fixed.'--- *** ---it is obvious that as required by rule l(i) of order vii of the code of civil procedure, the valuation for the purpose? of jurisdiction has nto been mentioned. however, the suit being a simple suit for the recovery of money and the court fee being ad valorem, there cannto be any doubt whatever, that the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction will be the same as that for the court fee. in view of this, while framing the issues, the court below observed as follows:- 'inpara no. 6 of the plaint, the plaintiff stated the value for the purposes of court fee, but it appears that the word jurisdiction was omitted. this being a money suit the value for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction has to be the same the defendant raised an objection in the written.....
Judgment:

M.M. Ismail, J.

(1) The respondent herein filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2214.14 against the petitioner herein. Paragraph 6 of the plaint was as follows:-

'THATthe value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee for the recovery of arrears of rent is Rs. 2080.00 and for recovery of electric charges is Rs. 134.14, upon which Court fee of Rs. 284.20 and Rs. 14 has been fixed.'

--- *** ---

It is obvious that as required by Rule l(i) of Order Vii of the Code of Civil Procedure, the valuation for the purpose? of Jurisdiction has nto been mentioned. However, the suit being a simple suit for the recovery of money and the Court fee being ad valorem, there cannto be any doubt whatever, that the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction will be the same as that for the court fee. In view of this, while framing the issues, the court below observed as follows:-

'INpara No. 6 of the plaint, the plaintiff stated the value for the purposes of court fee, but it appears that the word jurisdiction was omitted. This being a money suit the value for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction has to be the same The defendant raised an objection in the written statement that the omission to state the jlirisdictional valua rendsrsthe plaintiff's suit tiable to dismissal. That contention, howaver, has no force in so tar as there is obvioasly a clerical error which can be corrected at any stage. Thera is no necessity for filing of an application for the amendment of the plaint and I allow the plaintiff to amend para No. 6 on payment of Rs. 50.00 as costs.'

It is this order of the learned Subordinate Judge that ii challenged in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. that argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Ordar 6 Rule 17, Sub rule (2) as introduced by the Punjab High Court on 14th December 1931, every application for amendment be in writing and shall state the specific amendments which are sought to be made, indicating the words or paragraphs to be added, omitted or substituted in the original pleading and this requirement has nto been complied With. Evan assuming that this contention of trie learned counsel is wall founded, I am unable to see how Article 2 of the Constitution can bs invoked for this purpose. Aiticle 227 of the Constitution is nto intended to correct every mistake a subordinate Court may commit in the proced it follows in the trial of suits which it deals with everyday. The scope aid purpose of Article 227 of the Constitution is something very different from the correction of such errors. I repeatedly asked the learned counsel how Article 227 will lie under these circumstances. The learned counsel referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and tohers Mallikajun Bhavanappa Tirumale and a decision of that Calcutta High Court in Aswini Kumur Pramanik v. Dominion of India, throughthe Certificate Officer and contended that the scope of the jurisdiction of the. High Court under Article 227 is much wider than the scope under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and thereforee, he is entitled to invoke Article 227 ofthe Constitutionin I am unable to agree. The decisions referred to by the learned counsel do nto lay down any such proposition. There may be some overlapping between the jurisdiction covered by Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure and that covered by Article 227 of the Constitution, but Article 227of the Constitution has to be resorted to and made use of very sparingly for the purpose of correcting grave cases of injustice or miscarriage of justice. As far as this particular case is concerned, there can bs no injustice whatever which the petitioner can be said to suff r from the amendment ordered by the Court-below. Even under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, if a petitioner makes out a case that there has been an error on the part of the subordinate Court with reference to a particular case, still it is nto obligatory on the part of the High Court to interfere with that order, since the jurisdiction of the High Court is only discretionary, and in this particular case, when justice has been done and no injustice or prejudice whatever his resulted to the petitioner herein, there is absolutely no scope whatever to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court either under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution. Toe petition i^ accordingly dismissed.


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