Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 421 (AP)

Korada Srinivasa Rao v. Gurupuru Gopalamma

2005-04-27

A.GOPAL REDDY

body2005
A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE defendant filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24-3-2005 passed in i. A. No. 65 of 2005 in O. S. No. 28 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, parvatipuram. ( 2 ) THE first respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit in O. S. No. 28 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Parvatipuram for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties contending that the plaintiff and the defendants are the Class-1 heirs of late Ramulu, and after demise of ramulu they became the absolute owners of the properties, left over by late Ramulu stating that at the time of filing of suit since the plaintiff had no necessary information regarding survey numbers of the landed property owned and possessed by them, she could not include the said property in the schedule and in recent past having secured details of landed property, which are admittedly the joint family properties, she filed I. A. No. 65 of 2005 before the Civil judge seeking amendment of the plaint and schedule appended to it by incorporating the said property in the plaint schedule. ( 3 ) THE defendants contested the matter stating that the amendment filed is belated one and the plaintiff has not obtained necessary valuation certificates from the Sub- registrar s office regarding value of the lands and the petition filed is only to protract the litigation and hence the same is liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) THE Senior Civil Judge observed that due to lack of details of landed property plaintiff could not include the said property in the plaint schedule, though there is substantial delay in filing the petition, as the proposed an endment will not change the nature of the same is required for just adjudication of claims and also to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the learned Judge by the inpugned order dated 24-3-2005 allowed the interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner/1st defendant contended that allowing of imendment petition will amount to taking awav the jurisdiction of the Court and the same is liable to be set aside. He relied on a judgment of this Court in Edupuganti raghavendra Rao Memorial High School committee, Gudlavalleru, rep. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner/1st defendant contended that allowing of imendment petition will amount to taking awav the jurisdiction of the Court and the same is liable to be set aside. He relied on a judgment of this Court in Edupuganti raghavendra Rao Memorial High School committee, Gudlavalleru, rep. by its President and others v. Potluri Atchayya and others and contended that if the amendment petition is allowed, the Senior Civil Judge will not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, while seeking amendment plaintiff has sought to amend value of the suit to that of Rs. 49,04,294/- in the place of 5,74,710/-, and the plaintiff s 1/4th share comes to Rs. 12,26,098. 50 ps. in the place of rs. 1,43,627. 50 ps. The contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the amendment is made it will go beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Senior Civil judge and he cannot allow the amendment and only the Civil Court can make amendment in view of law declared by this Court in m. Ramayyamma v. M. Kamalakara Rao wherein this Court held that when a suit is filed in a Court empowered to try it, it is only that Court that is competent to decide whether the amendment applied for should be allowed or refused on merits. The consideration as to whether subsequent to the amendment the court would still continue to have pecuniary jurisdiction does not arise at that stage. If as a result of the amendment the suit valuation exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, it would naturally return the plaint for presentation in the proper Court. It will not, therefore, be right for the Court to refuse the amendment merely on the basis that if the amendment is allowed, the suit would be beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction. To the same effect, a view has been taken by this court in B. Ranga Rao v. American refrigerator Company. Similar view is also taken by the Madras and Kerala High Courts in M. Allauddin v. P. S. Lakshminarayana and Suri Films v. S. N. Govinda Prabhu and brother respectively. ( 7 ) IN view of the same, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of amendment Senior Civil judge cannot try the suit and allow the amendment cannot be accepfed. ( 7 ) IN view of the same, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of amendment Senior Civil judge cannot try the suit and allow the amendment cannot be accepfed. It is not denied by virtue of said amendment Court will not have jurisdiction to try the suit. The proper course open for the Court is to return the plaint to be presented in a proper Court but the same cannot be a ground to refuse the amendment as ordered by the Court below. There is no denial to the effect that the properties, which the plaintiff and defendants succeeded, were left over by late Ramulu. Being Class-1 heirs, they are entitled to their share according to their succession. In view of the same, the order so passed by the lower court does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. ( 8 ) CIVIL Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. However, it is made clearthat on such amendment being allowed the petitioner is entitled to file additional written statement.