Judgment :- S. Sankarasubban, J. Revision petitioner is the first respondent in O.S. No. 127 of 1996, which was filed by the first respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 in the Civil Revision Petition are defendants 2 and 3. The suit was filed for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of portion of the building bearing Door No. MP 10/267 in the ground floor and MP 10/259 in the first floor situated in R.S. No. 129/6 of Uppala Village. 2. Revision petitioner filed written statement. The claim of the plaintiff was that he had obtained assignment of the leasehold right in respect of the plaint schedule property and the right, title and interest of the landlords in respect of the properties were assigned to him as per the order of the Land Tribunal in S.M. No. 80/92. The present revision petitioner contended that the assignment deed and the proceedings in S.M. No. 80/92 were fraudulent and collusive. The revision petitioner filed a counter claim and prayed for setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal valuing the properties at Rs. 1,776/- and had paid a court fee of Rs. 36/-. The relief claimed in the counter claim was for a declaration that the order passed by the Land Tribunal No. 1, Kasaragod in S.M., No. 80/92 and also the purchase certificate in respect of the properties mentioned in the counter claim are void and not valid. 3. Immediately after the filing of the counter claim, the plaintiff withdrew the suit. Thereafter, the plaintiff contended that the properties scheduled in the counter claim were valued at Rs. 10 lakhs. An advocate commissioner was appointed to estimate the total value of the properties. The commissioner estimated the value at Rs. 14,38,330.30. At that juncture, the revision petitioner filed an application under 0.6R. 17 and s. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the counter claim. In the amendment petition, the revision petitioner wanted to limit the claim to 1.5 cents in R.S. No. 129/6 of Uppala Village containing a shop building bearing Door No. MY No. 10/247 with appurtenant land. This was opposed by the plaintiff. By the impugned order, the court below dismissed the amendment application. It is against that the present revision is filed. 4. This was opposed by the plaintiff. By the impugned order, the court below dismissed the amendment application. It is against that the present revision is filed. 4. The court below has taken the view that the amendment application is not bonafide in as much as it has been dismissed. The commissioner found the value at Rs. 14,38,330.30 and the plaintiff pressed for hearing on the question of jurisdiction. It was in that view that the application was dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the lower court was wrong in dismissing the application. According to him, in so far as no order has been passed to return the counter claim to the proper court, the court has jurisdiction to amend the plaint. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that once it is found that the court has no jurisdiction, it has no power to allow the amendment. Learned counsel brought to my notice certain decisions, viz. Zohra Khatoon v. Mohd. Jane A/ am, AIR 1978 Cal. 133, Ratan Chand v. Mahendra Kumar, AIR 1979 Cal. 55 and Mutyalamma v. Narayanaswamy, 1949 (1) KLJ 589. These are for the proposition that when once the court finds that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit, then it cannot further pass an order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction. But according to me, in this case, that stage has not reached. The court below has not agitated on the question whether the counter claim is within the jurisdiction or not. The court has not passed an order directing the petitioner to return the counter claim and present it to the proper court. 6. In Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao v. K.R. Mahale, AIR 1969 Bom 370, it was observed as follows: "Where the valuation of a suit is found to be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Court, it is open to the plaintiff at any stage of the suit but before the plaint is returned for presentation to the proper court, to abandon any part of his claim under 0. 23, R.1(1), Civil P.C. so as to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court. This does not require any amendment of plaint or any permission of the court. 23, R.1(1), Civil P.C. so as to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court. This does not require any amendment of plaint or any permission of the court. This can be done by a unilateral act of the plaintiff by making statement to the Court and the Court would normally record the statement and proceed to try the suit with regard to the rest of the claim. Even if the plaintiff applies for such amendment of the Court should treat it as a statement abandoning part of the claim. The Court is not justified in refusing the amendment merely on the ground that as it has no jurisdiction to try the suit it has also no jurisdiction to allow amendment of plaint or even to record the statement of the plaintiff abandoning part of the claim. As long as the Court has not given a finding that it has no jurisdiction and the plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper Court, it is seized of the matter because the Court has the right to decide the question of its own jurisdiction even if the decision ultimately be that it has no jurisdiction". In Nanikutty Amma Devaki Amma & Ors. v. Krishnan Kochunarayan Nair & Ors., AIR 1978 Ker 3, Viswanatha Iyer, J. referred to the above decision and held as follows: "I respectfully agree with this principle and I hold that the court has no power to order an amendment of the plaint after i t has passed an order directing return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court having jurisdiction." 7. In the result, I set aside the impugned order and direct the court below to consider the I.A. afresh after hearing both parties. Civil Revision Petition is allowed.