Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 4326 (MAD)

P. S. Rajesh v. Ken H. Raja

2010-09-27

S.RAJESWARAN

body2010
Judgment : This suit papers were presented on behalf of the plaintiff on 29.4.2010. The prayer originally prayed is for a judgment and decree directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.23,36,600/-. In paragraph 12 of the plaint, the plaintiff valued the suit for purpose of value and jurisdiction at Rs.23,36,600/- and paid a Court fee of Rs.26,900/-. 2. On 7.5.2010, the suit papers were returned by the Registry pointing out certain defects. At that time, the pecuniary jurisdiction question was not raised by the Registry as the amendment to City Civil Court Act came into force later. The papers were represented by the plaintiffs on 25.6.2010. Obviously, at that time the amendment was given effect to and the pecuniary jurisdiction of City Civil Court was raised, which means, the above suit filed for a total value of Rs.23,36,600/- could not be maintained before this Court and the same should go to City Civil Court. Being aware of the same, the plaintiff not only complied with the five defects pointed out by the Registry on 7.5.2010, but also paid an additional Court fee of Rs.3,000/- by raising the total claim from Rs.23,36,600/- to Rs.26,36,600/-. Thus, the plaintiff has done on his own accord by marking necessary charges in ink in the plaint at the appropriate pages. 3. On 29.6.2010, the papers were again returned by the Registry pointing out the previous defects i.e., item 1 to 5 were not at all complied with and the additional prayer made by the plaintiff previously in ink was to be valued separately on deficit Court fee was to be paid within 10 days. From this, it is very clear that even though the plaintiff on his own raised the suit claim, the Court fee paid was still deficit and therefore, the same was asked to be paid by the Registry. 4. On 7.7.2010, the plaintiff complied with and re-presented the papers with the additional Court fee of Rs.3,525/- was paid. 5. On 20.7.2010, papers were once again returned by the Registry by stating that all the averments are to be added in the original plaint papers also (paragraph No.8). 4. On 7.7.2010, the plaintiff complied with and re-presented the papers with the additional Court fee of Rs.3,525/- was paid. 5. On 20.7.2010, papers were once again returned by the Registry by stating that all the averments are to be added in the original plaint papers also (paragraph No.8). A perusal of the same would show that at the time of re-presentation, the clean copy of the plaint was filed incorporating a new prayer towards damages and a new paragraph i.e., paragraph No.8 stating that the plaintiff is claiming Rs.3,00,000/- towards damages. However, all these changes were not made in the original pliant and therefore, the Registry instructed the plaintiff to add all averments which were added in the clean copy of the plaint in the original plaint itself. 6. On 26.7.2010, the plaintiff complied with the returns and re-presented the papers after incorporating all the additions made in the clean copy of the plaint in the original plaint. 7. On 4.8.2010, the office returned the plaint again by raising a query as to how the suit is maintainable since the value of the suit is below Rs.25 lakhs at the time of the first presentation of the suit. 8. The plaintiff in answer to this query replied that when the plaint was re-presented on 25.6.2010, additional Court fee of Rs.3,000/-was paid after valuing the prayer for compensation. Therefore, the value of the suit stood at Rs.26,36,600/-. Hence, this Court has got pecuniary jurisdiction to take the suit on its file. 9. In such circumstances, the office entertained a doubt whether the above plaint may be posted for maintainability before the Court. After getting the consent from the Court, the same was posted before me for maintainability. 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relying on the judgments in P. Varada Pillai v. P.V. Thillai Govindaraja Pillai AIR 193 1 Madras 8 and M.K. Modi v. K.K. Modi submits that once the papers are returned for certain compliances, it is open to the plaintiff to add or delete some prayer to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of this Court. 11. I am unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 12. It is not in dispute that the suit was originally filed for recovering a sum of Rs.23,36,600/- and Court fee was paid for the above said suit value only. 11. I am unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 12. It is not in dispute that the suit was originally filed for recovering a sum of Rs.23,36,600/- and Court fee was paid for the above said suit value only. The office returned the papers for the first time for certain deficiencies and no defect was pointed out with regard to value of the suit and Court fee paid. Obviously at that time, the City Civil Court Act was not amended and the suit could be maintained here within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. 13. However, it was the plaintiff who himself added another prayer in the prayer portion seeking damages for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs and re-presented the papers along with the additional Court fee of Rs.3,000/-. This was done by the plaintiff on his own, because by that time the City Civil Court Act was amended and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court was raised to Rs.25 lakhs. That is why, the plaintiff on his own raised the suit value to another Rs.3 lakhs to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction, of this Court. 14. It is for the plaintiff to value suit for the purposes of value and jurisdiction, but the same should be done in a transparent manner. It is not open to the plaintiff to make additions and deletions with regard to the prayer portion and the Court fee paid once the plaint was filed without the leave of the Court. If the plaintiff wants to add one more prayer, seeking a sum of Rs.3 lakhs towards damages, then a proper way is to file an amendment petition to amend the plaint to raise the value of the plaint. Similarly, if the plaintiff wants to add one more paragraph the leave of the Court should be obtained to do so, after the original plaint was returned for certain other compliances. The plaintiff cannot make additions, deletions, alterations, interpolations, etc., in a plaint on his own after the papers are returned for some other compliances. Further, when these things are allowed, it may lead to unnecessary consequences as at a later point of time, it would not be known as to what was the original suit claim and when and how the same was changed. 15. Further, when these things are allowed, it may lead to unnecessary consequences as at a later point of time, it would not be known as to what was the original suit claim and when and how the same was changed. 15. Therefore, I am of the considered view that what has been done by the plaintiff is undesirable and this Court cannot grant its stamp of approval to it. 16. Hence, I direct the Registry to return the suit papers to the plaintiff and it is open to the plaintiff to take out necessary amendment applications if he wants to make changes in the original plaint so as to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. 17. In P. Varada Pillai v. P.V. Thillai Govindaraja Pillai (supra) the trial Court (emphasis supplied) passed an order returning the plaint and directing it to be presented it before proper Court. The plaintiff got the plaint and amended it himself by striking off one relief and represented before the same Court alleging that after the changes he has made it would lie in that Court. The Court now held in his favour though the defendant took the objection that the plaintiff was not entitled to amend the plaint and re-presented in the same Court. Only in such circumstances, this Court held that the order of lower Court was correct. 18. The facts in the present case totally different and no order has been passed by this Court returning the plaint to the plaintiff directing the plaint to be presented before the proper Court. 19. In M.K. Modi v. K.K. Modi (supra), the Delhi High Court held that wherdas Order 7 Rule 10 deals with the situation when the plaint can be ordered to be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. 20. There is no quarrel with regard to the proposition of law referred to by the Delhi High Court but the facts in that case are totally different and the decision is not at all helpful to the case of the plaintiff. 21. In the result, the suit papers are directed to be returned to the plaintiff either to be presented before the proper Court, or take out necessary applications to raise the suit claim to retain the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. Order accordingly.