Judgment : Plaintiff in O.S.No.30 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedasandur is the revision petitioner. Suit filed by him was one for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendant from interfering with his possession and for incidental reliefs. 2. Defendant in his written statement denied the title of plaintiff. Plaintiff therefore filed a petition for withdrawing the suit and to file a properly instituted suit. When permission was sought for the same was objected. Therefore an application for amending the plaint was filed as I.A.No.714 of 1998 to incorporate the relief of declaration of title. 3. Respondent again opposed the amendment mainly on the ground that if amendment is allowed, the suit will be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of court below. 4. By the impugned order, lower court dismissed the amendment application only on the ground that if amendment is allowed the suit will be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. The said order is challenged in this revision petition. 5. Notice of motion was ordered and respondent also entered appearance. 6. After hearing counsel on both sides. I do not think that the order of lower court could be supported. 7. It is well settled that if by amendment, jurisdiction of the court is ousted, that by itself cannot be a reason for not allowing the amendment application. 8. Mulla on Code of Civil Procedure, (1996 Edn.). commenting on O.6, Rule 17, has considered different views expressed by different High Courts on this question. Learned author has stated thus: “Amendments ousting the jurisdiction of the court: There is some conflict of Judicial opinion on the question whether an amendment can be allowed which will have the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the court. The Madras High Court has held that that could not be done and this view has been adopted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh Discussing this question in Lalji Rachchodas v. Narottam the Nagpur High Court observed that just as a court which has no initial jurisdiction cannot invest itself with jurisdiction by ordering amendment, so also it will be acting without jurisdiction in entertaining an amendment application which will oust its jurisdiction and that the proper order to make is to return the plaint and the application for amendment for presentation to the proper court. But the High Court of Rajasthan has taken a different view in Kundanmal v. Thikana Siryari and hold that where the suit as instituted is within the jurisdiction of the court, it has jurisdiction to order amendment and if the plaint as amended is beyond its jurisdiction, it should order it to be presented to the proper court, In a later decision the Madras High Court has changed its former view and has fallen in line with the High Court of Rajasthan. If the amendment of the plaint as sought would (if granted) take the suit out of the jurisdiction of the court trying the suit, the court should not reject the application, as it is only the court competent to try the suit (as filed) that can decide the question of amendment. The court must (i) consider the application on the merits and (ii) if it is granted, return the amended plaint for presentation to the proper court. According to the Kerala High Court, an amendment of plaint which (if granted) would oust the jurisdiction of the court, can be allowed. After such amendment, the court should return the plaint for presentation to the proper court.” 9. Our High Court has occasion to consider this question in the decision reported in Allaudin v. Lakshminarayanan Allaudin v. Lakshminarayanan Allaudin v. Lakshminarayanan (1969)1 MLJ. 239. Justice Veeraswami (as he then was) has considered various decisions of this Court where different view was taken. Distinguishing those decisions, learned Judge has held thus, “Sri Hariharan for the respondent contends that where allowing an amendment of a plaint sought for will result in deprivation of the jurisdiction of the court allowing it, the amendment should not be allowed. I do not think that this proposition is supported by Singara Mudaliar v. Govindaswami Chetti (1928(54 MLJ. 145, and Nagutha Md.Nainar v. Vedavalli Ammal Nagutha Md.Nainar v. Vedavalli Ammal Nagutha Md.Nainar v. Vedavalli Ammal (1959)1 MLJ. 307 which no relied on, The first of them related to the original side of this Court acting as a transferees court from the City Civil Court in respect of a plaint. Venkatasubba Rao, J., referred to Annie Besant v. Narayaniah 27 MLJ. 307 which no relied on, The first of them related to the original side of this Court acting as a transferees court from the City Civil Court in respect of a plaint. Venkatasubba Rao, J., referred to Annie Besant v. Narayaniah 27 MLJ. 30:4 I.A. 364 which held that the powers of the High Court, in dealing with suits transferred under clause 13 of the Letters patent, would be the powers which, but for the transfer might have been exercised by the court, from which the transfer was made, and posed the test, in view of the decision, if the amendment sought for was allowed by the Original Side of the High Court, it would take it ipso facto outside the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. The learned Judge considered that if the answer was affirmative, the amendment sought for should be disallowed. With due respect, that principle is well understandable. The transferee court allowing an amendment which would have that effect, would imply that the suit could neither be transferred to the original court nor the transferee court could proceed with the suit because its jurisdiction is controlled by the width of the jurisdiction of the court from which the suit is transferred. That is not the case here. The court below is the court properly in seizing of the plaint as it is and it is only is and when the amendment is allowed the question would arise whether that court could try the suit having regard to the enhanced valuation of the suit property for purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction. In my view, the right course to adopt in such a case is to allow the amendment, grant an opportunity to the plaintiff to pay the deficit court-fee, and if there is any question about pecuniary jurisdiction arising, examine the matter and if necessary in the light of a report to be called for from a commissioner and on a definite finding on that question, to decide whether the plaint should be retained or will have to be returned to the plaintiff as one in excess of the pecuniary jurisdiction of that court. …“ 10. Justice Nainar Sundaram (as he then was) has also taken a Similar view in the decision reported in Mathavan. A.T. v. S.Natarajan Mathavan. A.T. v. S.Natarajan Mathavan. …“ 10. Justice Nainar Sundaram (as he then was) has also taken a Similar view in the decision reported in Mathavan. A.T. v. S.Natarajan Mathavan. A.T. v. S.Natarajan Mathavan. A.T. v. S.Natarajan (1988)1 L.W. 176 learned Judge has relied on the decision of Justice Veeraswami (cited supra) and after considering various other decisions, in para 4 of the Judgment, learned Judge has held thus, ”4. Only on the amendment being allowed, the jurisdiction which the court initially had gets lost. Only after that contingency happens, the question or returning the plaint for presentation to proper court would arise. If the amendment sought for is to be disallowed, certainly the plaint as it was presented has got to be prosecuted. The other possibility of the court to which the plaint along with the amendment application is to be transferred, rejecting the amendment application cannot be ruled out, and in such case, the plaintiff will be in quandary. That should not be the result of the exercise of powers by the courts on the question of amendment. Hence, the court which originally entertained the plaint can certainly decide the question of amendment even though by allowing the amendment, it may lose its jurisdiction, and as a result of it, the plaint may have to to returned for presentation to the proper court, having jurisdiction as per the amended plaint. In this view. I am not able to sustain the contention put forth by Mr.T.M.Rangarajan, learned counsel for the defendant.“ 11. Kerala High Court has also considered this question in the decision reported in Suri Films v. S.N.Govinda Prabu & Brother Suri Films v. S.N.Govinda Prabu & Brother Suri Films v. S.N.Govinda Prabu & Brother A.I.R. 1989 Ker. 28. The decisions of most of the High Courts are considered in that case and in paras 7 and 8 of the Judgment, learned Judge has held thus, ”7. It is true that the amendment when allowed relates back to the date of the suit and if the suit as framed is beyond the jurisdiction of the court it would have no jurisdiction to allow the amendment for want of jurisdiction to entertain the suit itself. Entertaining and trying a suit which, when presented is beyond the jurisdiction of the court, is definitely not permissible. Entertaining and trying a suit which, when presented is beyond the jurisdiction of the court, is definitely not permissible. But the fact that the amendment relates back to the date of presentation of the plaint is national Even such a notional conception will come into play only when the plaint is amended. Without amendment if the court is having jurisdiction it can very well entertain and try the suit even though a superior or some other court is also having the same jurisdiction. The normal rule is that the lowest court having jurisdiction should entertain and try the suit. Then only the remedies like appeal and revision will be effective. When the lowest court having jurisdiction is seized of the matter it can be returned for presentation before another court on the ground of want of jurisdiction only if its jurisdiction is ousted. The question of ousting the jurisdiction in such a case would normally arise only if the claim is amended unless there in ouster by some statutory change. When a court having jurisdiction is seized of a matter the question whether the amendment has to be allowed or not could is considered only by that court. The question of ouster of jurisdiction and incompetency to decide anything in the suit will come into play only when that affect is achieved by amendment. There must be some authority to decide whether the amendment is to be allowed or not. Before that is done the court noticed of the matter and having jurisdiction alone will have to deal with it. Otherwise there will be a vacuum. Whether the amendment is allowable or not is a matter to be decided by the court. Which is the court that has to decide the matter if such a move comes when the suit is pending before a court of competent jurisdictione Is the jurisdiction to be decided on the assumption that each and every move for amendment capable of ousting jurisdiction has to be allowede If on that assumption the plaint is returned for presentation before the competent court and ultimately the amendment application is dismissed, what will happene 8. There the suit may have to be returned for representation to the original court itself. A plaintiff who is so inclined can repeat this process and have the case shuttled from court no court frequently. That is not the correct legal position. There the suit may have to be returned for representation to the original court itself. A plaintiff who is so inclined can repeat this process and have the case shuttled from court no court frequently. That is not the correct legal position. The question of ouster of jurisdiction will come only when the plaint is amended and the claim brought beyond the reach of the court before which it is pending. That process does not involve trying a suit beyond its jurisdiction. The court before which the case is pending alone is the court competent to deal with the amendment and in that process the merit of the claim and the question whether the effect will be ouster of jurisdiction are extraneous considered which are not in consonance with the spirit of O.6, Rule 17. Rejecting an application for amendment on the only ground that the amendment will oust the jurisdiction of the court is also not in consonance with O.6, Rule 17, nor is it conducive to the ends of justice. The jurisdiction of the court is ousted only when the plaint is a renewed and it will be possible to invoke the provision of O.7, Rule 10(1), C.P.C. only after amendment of the plaint, the effect of which alone will oust the jurisdiction of the court. Before that stage no question of applicable, of O.7, Rule 10(1) for return of the plaint could arise, the provisions of O.23 also cannot be invoked for that purpose. ” 12. In view of the binding precedent, I do not think that the order of the lower court could be sustained. 13. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that the application for amendment is filed without bona fides and the intention is only to prolong the litigation. 14. I do not think that I will be justified in taking those facts into consideration since lower court has dismissed the application only for the reason that if amendment is allowed, the same will result in that the suit is instituted beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction. 15. In the result, the order of lower court is set aside and I.A.No.714 of 1998 in O.S.No.30 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur is allowed. Petitioner is directed to incorporate the amendment. 15. In the result, the order of lower court is set aside and I.A.No.714 of 1998 in O.S.No.30 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur is allowed. Petitioner is directed to incorporate the amendment. Thereafter, lower court will decide the question about jurisdiction and in case it is found to be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction it will pass appropriate orders. 16. The revision petition is allowed as above. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.3987 of 1999 is closed.