1 94 ao.919.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 919 OF 2010 Prabhakar Ramchandra Desai and others. ... Appellants Versus Manohar Anant Mundye and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. G.R.Rege i/b Mrs.S.A.Mudbidri for the Appellants. None for the Respondents. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18 th April, 2011. P.C. 1 On 10 th August, 2010 notice for final disposal at admission stage was issued by this Court. None appears for the Respondents. The Appellants are the original plaintiffs. The Appellants filed a suit for declaration that the Appellant No.2 has become owner of the suit property on the basis of the sale-deed dated 20 th February, 2008. Various consequential reliefs have been prayed for in the suit. The suit has been instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) 2 94 ao.919.10 Sindhudurg at Oros. 2 In the said suit, an application was moved by the Respondents (defendants) at Exhibit-23 contending that the suit has been overvalued for the purposes of jurisdiction and therefore, the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), District Sindhudurg at Oros had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the Appellants. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has ordered that the plaint be returned to the Appellants for presentation before the appropriate Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division). 3 The finding recorded by the learned Judge is that the suit has been overvalued and if the suit is correctly valued, the suit will be maintainable in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), at Vengurla. Possibly relying upon Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Code”), the learned trial Judge passed the impugned order of return of the plaint. In the impugned order, the learned Judge has observed that an application for amendment of the 3 94 ao.919.10 plaint has been made by the Appellants for seeking amendment of the plaint for the purposes of incorporating a relief for damages in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. 4 I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants. None appears for the Respondents when the appeal is called out today. Under the provisions of Section 24 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act of 1969”), the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division has jurisdiction to entertain original suits irrespective of its valuation. The said Court has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction. There are the Courts of the Civil Judges (Junior Division) established which are empowered to hear and decide all civil suits having valuation upto Rs.1,00,000/-. A civil suit which could be filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) cannot be normally filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) in view of the mandate of Section 15 of the said Code, which requires that every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. 4 94 ao.919.10 5 In the present case, it is not in dispute that an application for amendment of the plaint made by the Appellants is pending. By the amendment, the Appellants are seeking to incorporate a prayer for damages in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. If the said amendment is allowed, the embargo of Section 15 of the said Code will not apply inasmuch as a Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) will have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Being the Court having jurisdiction over the entire District, it cannot be said that the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the application for amendment of the plaint. If the said application for amendment of the plaint is allowed, the return of the plaint will be exercise in futility as the suit will have to be entertained by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division). In the circumstances, the impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside and the learned trial Judge will have to be directed to decide the pending application for amendment of the plaint. 6 Hence, I pass the following order: i. The impugned order dated 28 th July, 2010 is 5 94 ao.919.10 quashed and set aside ; ii. The learned trial Judge will proceed to decide the application for amendment of the plaint on or before 15 th July, 2011 ; iii. If the said application is allowed, it is obvious that application at Exhibit – 23 made by the Respondents will not survive ; iv. If the said application for amendment of the plaint is rejected, the learned trial Judge will pass appropriate order in accordance with law on the application at Exhibit – 23 ; v. Appeal from Order is partly allowed on above terms with no order as to costs: vi. Civil Application No. 1128 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [ A.S.OKA, J ]