Skip to content


Karumbar Pandrapantdaram and anr. Vs. Audimula Ponnapandaram and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in3Ind.Cas.725
AppellantKarumbar Pandrapantdaram and anr.
RespondentAudimula Ponnapandaram and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), sections 53, 54, 67 - plaint returned for presentation to the proper court for want of jurisdiction--plaint re-presented to the same court after striking out certain prayers to bring it within its jurisdiction--power of court to receive the plaint as amended--amendment. - .....party has been able to refer me to any authority, which, covers the exact point, nor does the civil procedure code afford a clear answer. but, i think, in dealing with a question of this nature, i ought to act upon the principle that unless there is anything in the nature of a definite enactment which curtails its powers a court has inherent power to adopt a course of procedure which obviously tends to facilitate justice in preference to one, which, though it may have the appearance of being more technically correct, is likely to result in many cases to unmerited hardship and even to denial of justice to a litigant. besides i do not see why the action of the munsif should not be held to fall within the letter of section 57, civil procedure code, read with section 54, civil procedure.....
Judgment:

Abdur Rahim, J.

1. In this case the Munsif having found on the trial of an issue to the effect that the subject-matter of the suit was undervalued and that if properly valued it would exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of his Court returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court after the valuation had been corrected in accordance with this finding. The plaintiff amended the plaint by correcting the valuation and also struck off some of the properties from the plaint so as to bring the rest of the claim within the jurisdiction of the Munsif. He then re-presented the plaint so amended in the same Courts and put in a petition stating that he relinquished his claim, to the properties which he had struck out. The Munsif thereupon admitted the plaint, and the question is, had he the power to do so? The Vakil for neither party has been able to refer me to any authority, which, covers the exact point, nor does the Civil Procedure Code afford a clear answer. But, I think, in dealing with a question of this nature, I ought to act upon the principle that unless there is anything in the nature of a definite enactment which curtails its powers a Court has inherent power to adopt a course of procedure which obviously tends to facilitate justice in preference to one, which, though it may have the appearance of being more technically correct, is likely to result in many cases to unmerited hardship and even to denial of justice to a litigant. Besides I do not see why the action of the Munsif should not be held to fall within the letter of Section 57, Civil Procedure Code, read with Section 54, Civil Procedure Code. And since under Section 53, Civil Procedure, Code, Clause (c), the Court itself may at any time before judgment amend the plaint, I do not think that when an amendment is made by the plaintiff and is sanctioned by the Court, it, can be said that the Court had no power to allow or accept the amendment.

2. I hold, therefore, that the order of the Munsif is right and dismiss the petition with costs.


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