Gowaramma and Others vs Jayaramaiah and Others

L. Narayana Swamy, J.—The plaintiffs and defendants in OS No. 395/2001 filed IA Nos. 26 and 27 under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of plaint and written statement respectively. The petitioners were not parties to the suit. The petitioners claim, they were the family members of the joint family and they are entitled for partition. The suit was decreed and challenging the said judgment and decree, respondent No. 6 filed regular appeal and the lower appellate court remanded the matter to the trial court. On the application filed by the petitioners, they were impleaded as party defendants in the suit. The trial court allowed the IA for amendment filed by the plaintiffs, but rejected the application filed by the petitioners for amendment of written statement.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial court has erred in rejecting the application IA No. 27 on the sole ground that it exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction, in the absence of valuation slip filed by the petitioners and there was no basis for the court below to say that the amendment, if allowed, it exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction. It is submitted, even if it exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction, the proper course would have been to allow the application and thereafter affording opportunity to both the parties to put-forth their case on the pecuniary jurisdiction, the court below has to take decision in the matter. The impugned order passed on the sole ground that the amendment exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction is unsustainable. Even if the pecuniary jurisdiction exceeds, the court below is at liberty to return the plaint to be presented before the proper court. In support of this, the learned counsel referred decision of the Supreme Court reported in Gurbachan Singh Vs. Bhag Singh and others, and another judgment reported in Syed Imtiyaz Vs. Milka Vatsala, .

The learned counsel for the respondent submits to dismiss the writ petition. On the face of it, the counter claim exceeds pecuniary jurisdiction, for which appropriate application should have been made before the court having jurisdiction. In support of his case, the learned counsel referred the judgment of this Court reported in M. Shravan Kumar and R. Ashok Kumar Bansali Vs. Rajesh Exports Limited, .

I have heard both. The petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the order allowing IA No. 26 and rejecting their application IA No. 27. The plaintiffs by way of amendment wanted to add some more properties, which is allowed by the trial court. The suit is one for partition. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the court below in allowing the said application.

The court below has rejected IA No. 27 on the sole ground that the amendment would exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. It is held that "looking into the written statement schedule properties, prima facie appears that the value of the said properties exceeds the limit and pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court". Nothing is stated, on what basis the court below has formed such an opinion. No materials are referred or discussed. It is also not clear the parties were given opportunity to show how pecuniary jurisdiction would not exceed or otherwise.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above case has held that in such a case where it results in exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction, the court has to accept the said application or counter claim and permit the parties by framing an appropriate point or issue to substantiate the same. Thereafter, even if it is exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction, counter claim has to be accepted and thereafter either on its own motion or on the application made by the defendants, transmit the case to the court having the pecuniary jurisdiction, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. In case if it is not done, the defendants have to prefer a separate suit resulting in multiplicity of proceedings.

In the circumstances, I allow the application-I A No. 27 filed by the petitioners for counter claim. The court below is directed to frame an issue and permit both the parties to substantiate the same and then if the court below comes to the conclusion that in fact it exceeds pecuniary jurisdiction, transmit the case having jurisdiction either on its own motion or on the application filed for the said purpose. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.