: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.155 OF 2010 Raghavji R. Chheda & Anr. ... Applicants V/s. Priti wd/o. Dr.Manish Chheda & Ors. ... Respondents Ms.Nipa Shah for Applicants Ms.Manisha Pant for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: MARCH 4, 2010 P.C.: 1. The grievance of the applicants in this case is that the City Civil Court has erred by allowing the amendment application filed by the Respondent plaintiff. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff respondent No.1 for an injunction against the applicants-defendants and Respondent No.2-Defendant No.3. It appears that at an earlier stage amendments were sought by the plaintiff which were disallowed. This Court has confirmed the order passed by the trial Court refusing leave to amend. Thereafter a fresh application was filed for amending the plaint. According to the learned advocate appearing for the applicants, in essence, the amendments sought were the same as those which had earlier been refused. 2. The learned advocate for the applicants points out that the application for : 2 : amendment has been granted although an application had been filed by the applicants under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code for deciding the issue with respect to the jurisdiction of the Court as a preliminary issue. She submits that the amendments which have been allowed indicate that the Court does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. According to the learned advocate, in view of the judgment of Nagpur Bench of this Court in the case of Lalji Ranchoddas vs. Narottam Ranchhoddas, AIR 1953 NAGPUR 273, the Court ought not to have granted the amendment, without deciding the issue of jurisdiction. 3. In the aforesaid judgment, the Court has opined that when the trial Court is faced with the question of allowing an amendment which taken together with the original claim exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court, it should return the plaint together with the application for amendment. Both the plaint and the amendment application can be considered by the Court having jurisdiction to consider the original claim. 4. In view of this judgment, it is apparent that the City Civil Court has erred in considering the application for amendment de hors the application filed under Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC. It was necessary for the Court to decide both applications together; indeed the order 14 Rule 2 application should have been decided first. Instead, the trial Court has adopted the procedure in reverse and decided the amendment application without deciding the application under Order 14 Rule 2. 5. The learned advocate for the respondent plaintiff submits that even after the amendment the Court will have jurisdiction as the suit premises are tenanted. : 3 : 6. This submission of the learned advocate would have to be considered by the trial Court while deciding the aforesaid two applications. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The trial Court shall decide the application under Order 14 Rule 2 and the application for amendment together. In the even it is found that the amendment and the original claim when taken together would exceed its jurisdiction, the trial Court would have to return the paint as well as the application for amendment in view of the judgment in the Lalji Ranchhoddas (supra). 7. Civil revision application is allowed and disposed of accordingly.