J. N. PATEL, J. ( 1 ) LEAVE to delete respondent Nos 3,4 and 5 since they are formal party and they were co-defendants. ( 2 ) RULE. Mr. Kakkad waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos 1 and 2. With the consent of the parties matter is taken up for final hearing today. ( 3 ) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioner filed Regular C. S. No. 436/98 praying for declaration and perpetual injunction and also for transaction of sale which was valued at Rs. 50,000/ -. At the relevant point of time the Ld. Civil Judge (SD) had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit upto the limit of Rs. 50,000/ -. The petitioner moved the application to the learned trial judge being application-Exh. 49 raising objection that since there are two independent prayers the suit can not be tried by the court of CJ (JD) since the valuation will have to be made for declaration and perpetual injunction which should be Rs. 300/- in addition to the relief against sale deed for which suit was valued at Rs. 50,000/- and therefore it was prayed in the said application Exh. 59 to return the suit and the suit be treated as Special Civil Suit. The learned judge below the said application passed the order16. 8. 02 whereby he found that the opportunity is required to be given to the plaintiff and therefore it was ordered that the plaintiff to clarify the jurisdiction and of the court fee and necessary amendment be made within ten days. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT Nos 1 and 2-original plaintiffs treated the said order as that of allowing the amendment and carried the amendment in the plaint for the purpose of fixing the valuation of the suit for jurisdiction and amendment of the plaint. The petitioner simultaneously moved the application Exh. 61 contending that the amendment is carried out without there being any express permission or express order below any application for amendment of the plaint and the petitioner also raised objection for court fee. The learned judge after hearing both sides passed the order on 20. 2. 03 below application Exh. 61. The said order of the learned judge so far it relates to the amendment part is under challenge before this court. The learned judge after hearing both sides passed the order on 20. 2. 03 below application Exh. 61. The said order of the learned judge so far it relates to the amendment part is under challenge before this court. The part of the order for the court fee aspect is concerned, same is not under challenge in this petition. ( 5 ) I have heard Mr. Thakkar for the petitioner and Mr. Kakkad for respondent Nos 1 and 2. There is no dispute on the point that there was no express application for amendment nor there is any order below any application for amendment. However, the contention of Mr. Kakkad is that below application Exh. 49 the court allowed the necessary amendment and therefore the plaintiff carried out the amendment. Ld. Counsel Mr. Thakkar submitted that in the absence of any application for amendment the order below such application can not be treated as permission or even directing the amendment and therefore, the view expressed by the learned judge in the impugned order can not be sustained. ( 6 ) PRIMAFACIE, there is substance in the contention raised by Mr. Thakkar because when the application was moved by the defendants pointing certain aspects at the most the correct interpretation of the order dated 16. 8. 02 would that the plaintiff has to take necessary steps for amendment which would mean that he has to submit necessary application for amendment and thereby it can not be said that the procedure for submitting the application for amendment of pleadings of the parties and the order below the same was not to be followed at all or was to be bypassed. I am not examining the said aspect in detail in view of subsequent stand taken by the parties as referred to hereinafter. ( 7 ) MR. KAKKAD, Ld. counsel for the respondents has submitted that as such in view of the amendment under Bombay Civil Courts Act which has come into effect from 2. 9. 02 the Civil Judge (JD) has now pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit upto Rs. 1 lac and therefore there is no question of transferring the said suit and it can be tried as Regular Civil Suit. It is true that on account of amendment in the Bombay Civil Courts (Gujarat Amendment) Act the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. CJ (JD) is enhanced to Rs. 1 lac and therefore there is no question of transferring the said suit and it can be tried as Regular Civil Suit. It is true that on account of amendment in the Bombay Civil Courts (Gujarat Amendment) Act the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. CJ (JD) is enhanced to Rs. 1 lac and the suit even if it was considered as it is by excluding the dispute of amendment raised in this petition, it can now be tried as Regular Civil Suit by the same court because even if the valuation is added for Rs. 300/- to the original valuation of Rs. 50,000/-, then also the suit will not be required to be returned to the parties for presentation in the proper court nor it would be required to be transferred to the court of CJ (S. D ). ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid observations, Mr. Kakkad for respondent (Original plaintiff) has not pressed the amendment which was carried out pursuant to order, dated 16. 8. 02 below application-Exh. 49 and therefore since the plaintiff has not pressed for the amendment it is not necessary for this court to further examine the matter on the question of legality and validity of the order passed by the learned judge so far as the amendment aspect is concerned and for referring the matter to the Court Fee Inspector, the same is not under challenge in this petition. As such so far as the amendment part is concerned in view of the aforesaid declaration made by Mr. Kakkad appearing for original plaintiff the order would become infructuous and the challenge also consequently would not survive. ( 9 ) HENCE in my view the following directions would meet with the ends of justice: (I) the petitioner-plaintiff shall abide by the statement made by Mr. Kakkad that he shall not press the amendment pursuant to the order dated 16. 8. 02 and consequently such amendment shall stand deleted from the plaint. (II) it would be open to the learned trial judge to try the suit, since in view of the amendment in Bombay Civil Courts Act which has come into force on 2. 9. 02, he has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit upto Rs. 1 lac. (III) the order for referring the matter to the Court Fee Inspector is concerned, it shall continue to operate in accordance with law. 9. 02, he has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit upto Rs. 1 lac. (III) the order for referring the matter to the Court Fee Inspector is concerned, it shall continue to operate in accordance with law. ( 10 ) THE petition is disposed of in terms of aforesaid directions. Rule is discharged. There shall be no costs. .