1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3813 OF 2010. Smt. Ashabai Hagru Kachure and others. -: VERSUS :- Smt. Pushpa Krishnaji Meham and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 18, 2010. Heard learned counsel for petitioners. Petitioners/plaintiffs amended the plaint and sought relief that Sale deed dated 21.02.2005 is illegal and void. The amendment was carried out and after realizing that they have to pay court fee under Section 6[h] of the Bombay Court Fees Act, a further amendment was sought to delete the words “illegal and void” with contention that the petitioners/plaintiffs are satisfied with the declaration that the said Sale deed is not binding on them. Before this Court, the learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of this Court reported at 2009 (3) All MR 2 568 (Khanderao Bhjujangrao Babar .vrs. Bharatbai Shrimant Gomasale and others) to contend that as only declaration about binding character of sale deed is sought and plaintiff is not party to that sale deed, the demand of court fee under Section 6[h] of the Act is not justified. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the merits of the controversy. The amendment is already carried out in the plaint and hence, the suit goes beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division. If any words are to be deleted to bring the suit within the jurisdiction, the said exercise will have to undertaken before the competent Court. The learned Counsel for petitioner states that this is not the reason given by the trial Court for rejecting prayer for amendment. The reasons given by the trial Court are not very relevant as consent or omission of party does not confer jurisdiction on trial Court. With liberty to petitioners to take appropriate steps in the matter, present Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.