ORDER This is a petition in revision which would not have arisen had a little more care been exercised and the procedural law on the point studied. 2. The petitioner (plaintiff) instituted the suit giving rise to this petition for possession of a house, arrears of rent upto 28-2-1954 and mesne profits thereafter for 25 mouths on the ground that the defendant was a tenant and had continued to hold over even after his tenancy was terminated by a notice duly served on him. Interest was also claimed from the date of suit. 3. The claim for possession was valued at Rs. 900/- on the basis of a years rent, that for arrears of rent for 3 months at Rs. 225/-, as the rate of monthly rent was Rs. 75/- and that for mesne profits was tentatively valued at Rs. 200/-. 4. During the pendency of the suit before the Additional Munsiff, the plaintiff applied for amendment whereby he claimed on account of mesne profits (correctly speaking they ought to be damages for use and occupation) Rs. 100/-p.m. and though, as already seen, the period for which these damages were claimed in the plaint was of 25 months in the application for permission to amend this period was shown to be 18 months, and deducting Rs. 200/- already claimed, by the amendment the plaintiff sought to increase his claim by another Rs. 1,600/-, thus raising the value of the claim for purposes of jurisdiction to Rs. 2,925/-. The Additional Munsiff granted leave to amend, and returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court, as his jurisdiction does not go beyond Rs. 2,000/-. But the mistake committed was that consequential amendments necessary to be made as a result of the grant of this application for amendment were not embodied in the plaint, and it appears that the application for leave to amend was treated as a part of the plaint and was returned along with the plaint. This was obviously wrong and the practice must, cease. When amendments of pleadings are allowed they should be embodied in the plaint or written I statement as the case may be. In case they cannot lie conveniently embodied in the plaint or written statement then an amended plaint or written statement embodying the additional pleadings allowed should be filed and insisted upon by the courts. When amendments of pleadings are allowed they should be embodied in the plaint or written I statement as the case may be. In case they cannot lie conveniently embodied in the plaint or written statement then an amended plaint or written statement embodying the additional pleadings allowed should be filed and insisted upon by the courts. Courts have Dower to visit failure to comply under Or. 6 R. 18 C. P.C. 5. The plaint with the application for leave to amend already referred to above, were then presented in the court of the Sub-Judge, along with another application seeking further amendments, whereby the claim was sought to be increased to Rs. 4,306/6/-. It appears that no order-sheet was opened, when the plaint was presented in the court of the Sub-Judge, and the endorsement on the second application for amendment inclines one to think that this presentation must have been on 30-4-57. An endorsement of this second presentation on the plaint and opening of an order-sheet were necessary and should have been done. 6. It is necessary to mention at this stage that in the application for leave to amend, and which was granted by the Additional Munsiff, the plaintiff had sought to amend the relief clause in the plaint only, and not para 6 of the plaint which runs thus : "(6) that the value of the subject-matter of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees is laid at Rs. 1,325/-(as per schedule)". 7. Because para 6 of the plaint was not sought to be amended by the first application, the learned Sub-Judge appears to have taken the view that the jurisdiction to decide the second application for amendment would also be with the Additional Munsiff. He also appears to have been of the view that the learned Additional Munsiff fixed the valuation on the basis of the amount to be found due and decreed, and this he considered wrong. He therefore directed that the matter of the second amendment be moved before the learned Additional Munsiff and the records be sent to him for that purpose. 8. It is difficult to understand the reasoning of the learned Sub-Judge, and in any case he erred in reaching the finding that he did. He therefore directed that the matter of the second amendment be moved before the learned Additional Munsiff and the records be sent to him for that purpose. 8. It is difficult to understand the reasoning of the learned Sub-Judge, and in any case he erred in reaching the finding that he did. If he means that the suit remained triable by the Additional Munsiff in spite of the amendment allowed by him, the correct procedure was to have returned the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before the proper court. It was not for him to decide which that court would be. Thus in directing to which court it will go, and also directing that the records be sent to the Additional Munsiff, the learned Sub-Judge, assumed a jurisdiction which he did not possess, namely of transferring the suit. The power to transfer and the power to return the plaint because it is not triable by the court to whom it has been presented, are two different things. The power to transfer is possessed by the District Court and the High Court. But the power to return the plaint as stated is possessed by all the civil courts. When exercising that power, what they decide is that the suit is not triable by the particular court and they are then concerned in only returning the plaint. It is not their duty to decide to which court it will go. It is the business of the plaintiff to whom the plaint has been returned to find out which is the proper court and to present it to that court. 9. The learned Sub-Judge also erred in taking the view that the value of the suit for jurisdiction was not changed by the amendment allowed by the Additional Munsiff. As already seen the plaintiff was claiming damages which had already accrued before the filing of the suit (1-3-54 to 31-3-56) and he was therefore liable to state the quantum of those damages, which were only tentatively stated in the first instance, and to pay court fee on the amount. The learned Additional Munsiff was thus right in allowing that amendment, and it is too plain to require any discussion that the value of the claim for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction will be the total amount including those damages, that is, the amount for which the plaintiff lays his claim. The learned Additional Munsiff was thus right in allowing that amendment, and it is too plain to require any discussion that the value of the claim for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction will be the total amount including those damages, that is, the amount for which the plaintiff lays his claim. The question that the court will have to ascertain the amount, is involved in every suit for money, but that is no criterion for jurisdiction. Similarly, amendment of para 6 was consequential on the grant of the amendment of the relief, and could have been ordered by the learned Sub-Judge. Order 6 R. 17 and Or. 7 R. 11 of the C.P.C. also give the court ample power in this respect. 10. The result is that the suit became triable by the Sub-Judge on the grant of the first amendment and the jurisdiction to decide the second application for amendment is with the Sub-Judge. 11. The order of the learned Sub-Judge, which is unsustainable, is set aside. The learned Sub-Judge will take the case on his file and proceed to consider the second application for leave to amend filed on 30-4-57. The plaintiff will be made to carry out all necessary amendments in the plaint (or to file an amended plaint) which might become necessary as a consequence of the grant of amendment by the Additional Munsiff and/or the order of the Sub-Judge on the second application. 12. It is evident that all these proceedings have been the result of carelessness on the part of the plaintiff and therefore even though this revision petition succeeds, I direct that parties shall bear their own costs, incurred in this revision petition. Revision allowed.