JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Plaintiff is the petitioner in this Civil Revision against the order of the trial Court refusing amendment of the plaint. 2. Title Suit No. 19 of 1982 was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Titilagarh for permanent injunction in respect of Ac. 1.301 decimals of land comprising in holding No. 21 of village Kantabanji. In paragraph 12 of the plaint the following averment was made. "12. That the suit is valued at Rs. 11,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction and at Rs. 500/- for purpose of court-fee and injunction and hence ad valorem court-fee worth Rs. 70.50 is paid herewith." Defendants raised objection to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court Thereafter the plaintiff filed the application for amendment of paragraph 12 of the plaint and to add the relief of declaration of title to the disputed land. 3. The trial Court relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in I. L. R. 1969 Cutt. 656 (Krupa Naik and Ors. v. Bhagaban Naik and Ors.) rejected the application for amendment on the ground that the court-fee having been paid on a valuation of Rs. 500/-the same would govern the pecuniary jurisdiction as provided u/s 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. In the same order it directed return of the plaint to the plaintiff to be presented in proper Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has preferred this Civil Revision. 4. In the reported decision it has been observed : "...But as in this case the suit was valued for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 4,816.00 and was instituted in Court of the Subordinate Judge, the valuation cannot now be reduced the effect of which would be to oust the jurisdiction of the Court...". This observation makes it clear that the plaintiff ought to have been called upon by the trial Court to pay the court-fee on the jurisdictional value of Rs. 11,000/- and payment of court-fee on a valuation ought not to have been given undue importance for returning the plaint, specially when plaintiff has come forward to amend the plaint. The rejection of prayer to amend the plaint to this effect amounts to exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity and is accordingly vacated. 5. 11,000/- and payment of court-fee on a valuation ought not to have been given undue importance for returning the plaint, specially when plaintiff has come forward to amend the plaint. The rejection of prayer to amend the plaint to this effect amounts to exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity and is accordingly vacated. 5. The amendment relating to the addition of the relief of declaration of title is not inconsistent with the relief for permanent injunction in this case. In order to grant permanent injunction the Court is required to go into the question of title in this case and it would not change the nature of the suit. The trial Court ought to have granted the prayer. 6. Defect in drafting the plaint has caused prejudice to the defendants on account of prolongation of the litigation. After amendment, the defendants have a right to file an additional written statement. The prejudice caused to the defendants can, however, be mitigated by payment of costs of Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred). Mr. Palit, the learned counsel for the petitioner paid the costs in Court. Accordingly, the prayer for amendment is allowed. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. The Trial Court is directed to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint in accordance with law. Final Result : Allowed