This revision petition by the defendant Gouranga Chandra Shaha arises out of a suit instituted against him on 7-5-1966 by Koar Bahadur Singh for possession of a piece of land and for recovery of the mesne profits respect­ing that land, and is directed against the order dated 4-7-1968 by which the Munsiff, Sadar, permitted the plaintiff to relinquish a part of the claim relat­ing to mesne profits and to amend the plaint, the nature of which amendment shall be presently stated. 2. The facts of the case have to be set out, though briefly, to bring out clearly the point that arises for deter­mination. The area of the land in dis­pute was mentioned in the original plaint as 1 kara and 1 krant. with specified boundaries. Its market value was fixed at Rs. 400/-. The amount claimed as mesne profits was put at Rs. 1400/-. An­other relief claimed in the suit was the removal of a hut built on the land in dispute by the defendant Gouranga Chandra, and this relief was valued at Rs. 60/-. Therefore, all-told, the value of the suit was fixed at Rs. 1860/- for the purpose of jurisdiction as well as of court-fee. The defendant objected to the correctness of the area of the land in dispute and also its valuation as given by the plaintiff. The Court issu­ed a commission for determining the exact area of the land within the bounda­ries mentioned in the plaint. The com­missioner reported that the area of the land is 2 karas and 16 dhurs, almost double of what had been mentioned in the plaint. That report was accepted by the Court on 23-3-1968. On 10-6-1968, the plaintiff applied for amendment of the plaint with a view to make the area of the land in dis­pute correspond with the report of the Commissioner. Two days thereafter, on 12-6-1968, the plaintiff submitted an­other application to the Court stating that since as a consequence of the report of the Commissioner the area of the land will have to be doubled with the result that the market value of the land will go up from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 800/-, he had decided to abandon claim to Rs. 736/-, representing mesne profits for the period of 18 months, so that the suit could re­main within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, which, in those days, was Rs. 2000/-. 400/- to Rs. 800/-, he had decided to abandon claim to Rs. 736/-, representing mesne profits for the period of 18 months, so that the suit could re­main within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, which, in those days, was Rs. 2000/-. Both the applications were opposed by the defendant Gouranga Chan­dra. After hearing the parties' counsel at length, the learned Munsiff allowed both the applications by his consolidated order dated 4-7-1968. It is against that order that the instant revision petition was filed. 3. In the opinion of the Munsiff it was open to the plaintiff to relinquish any part of the claim his sweet will and if the balance of the claim did not go beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, the suit could be proceeded with in the same Court. He distinguished the authorities cited on behalf of the defendant laying down that a Court has no right to direct the amend­ment of a plaint when the subject-matter of the suit is beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction. 4. Shri P. M. Palit, appearing for the defendant petitioner, strenuously urg­ed that since as a consequence of the report of the Commissioner the value of the suit stood enhanced to Rs. 2260/-, which was clearly above the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff seized of the suit, he (the Munsiff) had no jurisdiction to allow the plaintiff to abandon a part of his claim only to keep the valuation of the suit at a level well within his jurisdiction. In support of that contention he relied heavily on the case Tirkha v. Ghasi Ram, AIR 1935 All 842, Sobhagsingh v. Ranjit-sing, AIR 1943 Nag 293 and Varry Mutyalamma v. Dasary Narayanaswamy, AIR 1949 Mad 719. Shri M. C. Dev Roy, appearing for the plaintiff-respondent, on the other hand, urged vigorously that the authori­ties cited for the petitioner are clearly distinguishable on facts that it is always open to the plaintiff to relinquish any part of his claim under R. 1 of O. 23, Civil Procedure Code, and that no illega­lity had been committed by the Court in allowing the two applications dated 10th and 12th of June, 1963 made by the plaintiff. He placed reliance on the deci­sions in Duggempudi Ramakrishna v. Duggempudi Veerareddi, AIR 1946 Mad. 126 and Gainda Mai v. Madan Lai, AIR 1948 EP 30 to fortify his contention. 5. He placed reliance on the deci­sions in Duggempudi Ramakrishna v. Duggempudi Veerareddi, AIR 1946 Mad. 126 and Gainda Mai v. Madan Lai, AIR 1948 EP 30 to fortify his contention. 5. In my opinion, the matter in controversy does not present much of legal difficulty and it admits of easy solution. Before announcing orders on plaintiff's two applications on 4-7-1968, the date of impugned order, it was commonly admitted, the Munsiff had the jurisdiction to try the suit since its value until that moment was only Rs. 1860/-. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 23 of the Code provides that at any time after the institution of a suit .the plaintiff may, as against all or any of the defendants withdraw a suit or abandon part of his claim. There is abundant authority for the proposition that a part of the claim can be abandoned without any amend­ment of the plaint. It was held by the Madras High Court in the case of Duggempudi Rarnakrishna, AIR 1949 Mad 126 (supra) that a plaintiff has a right under O 23. R. 1. of the Code to relinquish part of his claim in order to bring it within the court-fee paid, and that neither permission of the Court nor an application for amendment of the plaint is necessary for that purpose. II the plaintiff abandons part of his claim, the High Court observed further, he has only to intimate that fact to the Court and to Court has only to note it on the plaint. Likewise, the Punjab High Court h»ld in the case of Gainda Mai, AIR 1948 EP 30 (cited above) that under sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 23 if a plaintiff wishes to withdraw a suit or abandon a part of his claim he can do so at his sweet-will. Indeed, on the plain language of the sub-rule there can be no dispute about f right of a plaintiff to abandon part of his claim as and when he makes up his mind to do so. Therefore it was clearly open to the Munsiff to accept the application made by Koar Bahadur Singh on 12-6-1968 for abandoning the claim to Rs. 736/- representing the mesne profits for the period ending with Octo­ber. 1963. On abandonment of that claim, the value of the suit immediately fell down to Rs. 1124/-. Therefore it was clearly open to the Munsiff to accept the application made by Koar Bahadur Singh on 12-6-1968 for abandoning the claim to Rs. 736/- representing the mesne profits for the period ending with Octo­ber. 1963. On abandonment of that claim, the value of the suit immediately fell down to Rs. 1124/-. A moment after the abandonment of the claim to Rs. 736/-. or even simultaneously with that abandonment, the Munsiff could permit amendment of the plaint, as prayed for by the plaintiff, for increasing the area of the land in dispute to accord with the report made by the Commissioner. The additional area of land was valued by the plaintiff at Rs. 400/-. Therefore, the total value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction would work out to Rs. 1524/-subsequent to the abandonment of the claim respecting Rs. 736/-. I can see no legal hurdle in the way of plaintiff's desire, and the court's ability, to procure that end - result. 6. All the three authorities cited on behalf of the defendant-petitioner are distinguishable on facts. Ghasi Ram of the Allahabad case, AIR 1935 All 842 had filed a suit on 2-7-1934 for the re­covery of Rs. 553-8-0 in the Court of Small Causes which had iurisdiction only upto Rs. 500/-. The suit having been registered the summons was issued to the defendant Tirkha who filed written statement on 17th of August, 1934, alleg­ing that the Court had no jurisdiction. It is thereafter that Ghasi Ram moved an application for amendment of the plaint with a view to reduce the claim to Rs. 500/-. That application was allow­ed on 10th of September, 1934, and there­after the case was tried on merits and ultimately decreed. Tirkha filed a revi­sion petition in the High Court which held that the trial Court has no right to direct the amendment of a plaint when it has no iurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit. It was further held that since Ghasi Ram had claimed a sum of Rs. 553-8-0 when the jurisdiction of the Court was limited to only Rs. 500/-. the Court could not have allowed Ghasi Ram to bring down the sum to Rs. 500/- by way of amendment with the object of giving iurisdiction to the Court. It was further held that since Ghasi Ram had claimed a sum of Rs. 553-8-0 when the jurisdiction of the Court was limited to only Rs. 500/-. the Court could not have allowed Ghasi Ram to bring down the sum to Rs. 500/- by way of amendment with the object of giving iurisdiction to the Court. It will be noticed that right from the date of the institution of the suit until the amendment was allowed the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, and for that reason the only course open to it was to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the Court having iurisdiction in the matter instead of allowing him to cut down the amount in suit to Rs. 500/- to clothe itself with jurisdiction. In our case, as already pointed out above, the Court had iurisdiction until the two applications were disposed of on 4-7-1968. The Court would have lost jurisdiction over the suit if it had allowed the amend­ment for addition to the area of the land in dispute without first taking note of the prayer of the plaintiff to abandon the claim respecting Rs. 736/-. But that contingency was met by deciding the two applications of the plaintiff simulta­neously. Indeed, speaking legalistically, the claim to Rs. 736/- stood abandoned at the very moment the application dated 12-6-1968 was presented to the Court for no order- of the Court was required to give it legal shape. The Court had only to make note of that fact on the plaint. The amendment application filed on 10-6-1968 could not be decided by the Court until the defendant had been given notice and his objection, if any, heard. Therefore, virtually and in law the value of the suit came down to Rs. 1124/- on 12-6-1968. when application abandoning claim to Rs. 736/- was made, and it went up to Rs. 1524/- on 4-7-1968, the date on which the amendment application of the plaintiff was allowed. 7. A close study of the Nagpur authority cited on behalf of the petitioner Gouranga Chandra would bring out that it has no relevancy to the point at anvil in the present petition. In the reported case, the suit valued at Rs. 1524/- on 4-7-1968, the date on which the amendment application of the plaintiff was allowed. 7. A close study of the Nagpur authority cited on behalf of the petitioner Gouranga Chandra would bring out that it has no relevancy to the point at anvil in the present petition. In the reported case, the suit valued at Rs. 13,477/- was pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge when the plaintiff Ranjit Singh hit upon the idea that if he could manage to get his suit tried in the Court of Subordinate Judge, First Class, who had jurisdiction in cases not exceed­ing Rs. 10,000/-, he would stand on a better footing respecting his legal rights including the plea or res judicata. He, therefore, amended his plaint by dropp­ing a claim to profits for a period of four years and thus brought the valuation of the suit below the sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Thereupon, he prayed that the suit should be sent to the Subordinate Judge because of the provisions of Section 15 of the Code which provides that every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. His prayer was granted by the Additional District Judge and the plaint was-return­ed to him for presentation to the proper Court in terms of Rule 10 (1) of Order 7 of the Code. That Rule enacts that the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been institut­ed. The defendant Sobhag Singh chal­lenged the -order of the Additional District Judge returning the- plaint by taking the matter in appeal in the High Court. The High Court accepted the appeal and re­manded, the suit to the Court of Addi­tional District Judge for trial on hold­ing that Rule 2 (1) of Order 2 under which the plaintiff had been permitted to relinquish a portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge, did not apply to a suit in which prayer for relinquishment of a portion of the plaint is made during the pendency of the suit. The High Court observed that that provision deals with the frame of the suit and does not refer to a case of abandon­ment of a part of the claim after the suit Is filed, or impose on any Court an obligation to allow a plaint to be amend­ed in such circumstances. Another per­tinent observation made was that the object of an amendment is to enable the Court, before whom a case is pending, to do justice between the parties and not to take the case away from the Court which has jurisdiction to try it. It would be evident that neither the facts of the Nagpur case nor the principles of law enunciated therein have any re­levancy to the case in hand. The plain­tiff Ranjit Singh of the reported case could certainly have abandoned a part of the claim under Rule 1 of Order 23 but clearly he had no right to urge after he had abandoned the claim that the plaint should be returned to him for presentation to the Court having jurisdic­tion to try the suit based on the amend­ed valuation. It may be added that even after the amendment following abandonment of a part of the claim, the Additional District Judge retained jurisdiction to try the suit. The High Court, speaking practically, condemned the practice of chicanery under the guise of amendment. 8. The exact point that arose for determination in the third authority (of Madras High Court) relied upon by Shri Palit was how should a suit for declara­tion of title to and possession of property alleged to be in occupation of the licensee be assessed for the purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee. The High Court held that such a suit falls under clause (v) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act and so ad valorem court-fee on the market value of the property in dis­pute shall have to be paid and that will also be its jurisdictional value. The High Court held that such a suit falls under clause (v) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act and so ad valorem court-fee on the market value of the property in dis­pute shall have to be paid and that will also be its jurisdictional value. Towards the close of the discussion of the matter in issue, the High Court happened to remark that "It is ordinarily not open to a Dis­trict Munsiff, though there may be some exceptional circumstances which may justify this course, to allow an amendment of any plaint which may help to bring a doubtful plaint really within the jurisdiction of a higher Court within his own jurisdiction", and added that "It is ordinarily his duty to decide his own jurisdiction to try the original plaint filed before him." These observations were called for because the suit originally had been evaluated at Rs. 800/- under Section 7 (v) of the Court-fees Act, apparently on the basis of the market value of the pro­perty in dispute, and that when the defendants raised the plea that the market value of the property was Rs. 3000/- the plaintiffs moved an appli­cation for amendment of the plaint to the effect that their suit was only for a declaration of their right in the property and to recover possession thereof after eviction of the defendants who are their licensees and that the value of their right to eject the licensees is Rs. 800/- under Section 7 (b) of the Court-fees Act. The High Court was critical of the order allowing the amendment to that effect, it being of the view that the suit was clearly for eviction of the defen­dants from the property in dispute and that such a suit had to be evaluated on the market price of the property both for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdic­tion. The High Court observed that in the matter of suits falling under clause (v) of Section 7 of the Court-fees Act the plaintiffs have no right to give an artificial value to the suit for the pur­pose of jurisdiction. I can find no parallel between the facts of this Madras high court and those of. the case I have to deal with. 9. I can find no parallel between the facts of this Madras high court and those of. the case I have to deal with. 9. It follows from the above dis­cussion that none of the three authori­ties cited on behalf of the defendant-petitioner provides a solution to the point that falls for determination in the present revision petition. For the reasons already stated above while exa­mining the arguments addressed by the counsel for the respondent and the authorities relied upon by him, I uphold the order made by the learned Munsiff and so reject the revision petition with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 16/-. Revision petition rejected.