JUDGMENT : S.K. Ray, A.C.J. 1. Plaintiffs opposite-parties 1 to 3 filed money-suit No. 3 of 1066 on 2-1-1966 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 19,063/- with interest, or In the alternative for a decree for the said amount or for any other amount which might be found due after rendition of account. 2. Their case was that they and the Defendant were members of & partnership firm which was dissolved by mutual consent on 31-12-1963. Upon dissolution the Accounts have been settled in which a sum of Rs. 24, 245.00 was found due to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs were paid a sum of seven thousand odd out of it, and they tiled the present suit for the recovery of the balance. The plaint was filed without payment of proper Court-fee thereon. They took some adjournments for payment of same, but ultimately tiled an application. On 22-3-1966 for Amendment of the plaint by which they Bought to delete the entire relief originally prayed for, and in its stead prayed that the Defendant be directed to file the arbitration agreement and after the same is filed, to appoint an arbitrator. This amounted to converting the suit into an application u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act. All these were obviously done before the Defendant was noticed of these proceedings. 3. This application for amendment was allowed and the suit was registered as T.S. 12/66 by order dated 1-4-1966. Ultimately, the Plaintiffs obtained an ex parte decree on 6-9-1966 appointing one Shri Parikhit Dash as arbitrator. 4. As soon 808 the Defendant came to know of it, he filed an application on 15-9-1966 under Order 9, Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure, which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 104/66. That application having been rejected, he came to this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 68/67, which was allowed by R.N. Misra, J. wherein it was held that since the Defendant-Petitioner was not served with notice of the application, the suit should be restored to its file. Thereafter the Petitioner filed an application challenging the amendment allowed as not maintainable. He also challenged the jurisdiction of the Court not only to allow the amendment of the plaint, but also to its lack of jurisdiction to convert a suit into an application u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act. Thereafter the Petitioner filed an application challenging the amendment allowed as not maintainable. He also challenged the jurisdiction of the Court not only to allow the amendment of the plaint, but also to its lack of jurisdiction to convert a suit into an application u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act. Order 7, Rule 11, CPC provides that the plaint shall be rejected where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper, in sufficiently stamped, and the Plaintiff on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time fixed by the Court bills to do so. 5. In view of this mandatory provision of law, the question arises whether the plaint was bound to be rejected, and whether the Court had any jurisdiction to direct amendment of a plaint which was not existing as such, for want of Court-fee, in the eye of law. It is also open to the Defendant when he appears in the proceeding to take objection to the amendment as illegal and seek to recall the previous order as one passed without jurisdiction. This right of the Defendant is clear since the previous order, amending the plaint was passed without notice to him. In the present case, having regard to all the circumstances, delay is no obstacle to entertaining the Defendant?s petition of objection and dealing with the merits of the contentions based thereon. The Subordinate Judge was also wrong in saying that he had no jurisdiction to determine the legality or otherwise of the order of his predecessor who passed the order of amendment on the application dated 22-3-1966. 6. I am, therefore, satisfied that the order of the Subordinate Judge cannot be sustained. He is directed to dispose of the Defendant?s petition dated 25-8-1970 afresh in accordance with law, and bearing in mind rand resolving the following subordinate questions arising consequentially, viz., (a) whether the original plaint which is bound to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, can be amended in the manner it has been done; (b) whether any application u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act can be filed after a suit has already been instituted in regard to the very subject-matter; and (c) whether the amendment-petition can be treated and dealt with as an independent application u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act. In the result, this revision is allowed, but there will be no order as to costs of this Court.