Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 508 (JHR)

Urmila Mandalain v. Girija Madalain

2005-07-15

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2005
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. With the consent of the parties, this revision application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 2. Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. 3. In this revision application the petitioners has challenged the order dated 25/8/2003 passed by the Sub-Judge-I, Jamtara in Title Suit No. 55/2000 whereby the learned Sub-Judge-I rejected the petition of the plaintiff filed under Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint. From the impugned order it appears that the learned Sub-Judge has rejected the prayer on two grounds. Firstly, that if the amendment is allowed it will change the character of the suit and secondly, that the suit property was valued less than Rs. 500/- and if the prayer for amendment was allowed then it will confer the jurisdiction on him to try the suit, which he did not have and, therefore, the Court having no jurisdiction cannot allow any amendment to bring the suit within its jurisdiction. 4. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the petition under Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C, filed by the petitioner, which have been annexed as Annexure-2 to this application and submitted that by the proposed amendment only clerical errors and typing mistakes were prayed to be rectified and, therefore, it is wrong to say that by allowing the said amendment the character of the suit would change. Mr. Sinha, further submitted that according to Regulation-9 of Santhal Parganas Justice Regulation, 1893 a Subordinate Judge has already been conferred jurisdiction to try a suit, the value of which exceeds Rs. 500/-and, therefore, the learned Court below has wrongly held that by allowing the proposed amendment it will confer him the jurisdiction which he did not have. 5. Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has vehemently opposed the prayer for amendment of the petitioners and has supported the impugned order by submitting that the Courts having no jurisdiction to try suit cannot allow such amendment. In support of his submissions he has relied on the decision of Patna High Court in the case of Pandit Rudranath Mishir and other v. Pandit Sheo Shankar Missir and others, . 6. In support of his submissions he has relied on the decision of Patna High Court in the case of Pandit Rudranath Mishir and other v. Pandit Sheo Shankar Missir and others, . 6. In order to appreciate the respective submissions of the parties, it is necessary to consider the Regulation 9 of the Santhal Parganas Justice Regulation, 1893 which reads as follows : "9. Extent of original jurisdiction of District Judge and Subordinate Judges.-The jurisdiction of the District Judge, [the Additional Judge] or a Subordinate Judge extends, subject to the provisions of Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure [(14 of 1882) to suits of which the value exceed [five hundred] rupees and which are not excluded from his cognizance by the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation (3 of 1872) or by any other law for the time being in force : Provided that such jurisdiction shall not extent to any suit for money in which the amount claimed, exclusive of interest, does not exceed [two hundred and fifty] rupees; [Provided further that no suit for the recovery of rent of which the value exceeds five hundred rupees shall be tried by any officer other than a sub- divisional Officer deemed to be a Subordinate Judge under the second proviso to Section 8]." 7. From bare perusal of the aforesaid Regulation 9 quoted above, it appears that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. The Subordinate Judge has already been conferred jurisdiction under the aforesaid Santhal Parganas Justice Regulation, 1893 to try a suit, the value of which exceeds Rs. 500/-. 8. From perusal of the petition under Order VI Rule 17, CPC filed by the petitioners, which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to this application, it appears that the proposed amendment were not as such which can be said that if the same are allowed would change the nature of the suit. The decision of Patna High Court as referred above as cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Accordingly, this revision application is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.8.2003 is hereby set aside and the proposed amendment of the plaint made by the plaintiff is hereby allowed subject to payment of cost of .. 9. Accordingly, this revision application is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.8.2003 is hereby set aside and the proposed amendment of the plaint made by the plaintiff is hereby allowed subject to payment of cost of .. 500/- to be paid to the learned counsel for the opposite parties within a period of four weeks from today.