HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4768 of 2008 ORDER: The defendants in O.S.No.40 of 2006 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, are aggrieved by the order of the said Court dated 05.09.2008 whereby and whereunder the plaintiff’s application for amendment of plaint was allowed. 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows: The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction with respect to the plaint schedule property admeasuring 1084.10 sq. yards. An application for temporary injunction in I.A.No.30 of 2006 was also moved therein, and initially, the trial Court granted orders of status- quo to be maintained by order dated 24.01.2006. Later, the order was made absolute on 17.01.2007. It is alleged by the plaintiff that on 21.05.2007 the petitioners/defendants entered into the schedule property, removed the roof of a dilapidated shed and virtually dispossessed him. It is also alleged by the plaintiff that he lodged a complaint with the police, but since no action is taken on the ground of pendency of the suit and alleging that there is violation of orders of status-quo passed by the trial Court, he sought relief against loss of possession as well as denial of his title by the defendants. It is in these circumstances that the plaintiff sought to add Paras-6(a) to (c) to the plaint by incorporating the subsequent events as aforesaid and also seeking amendment of the relief portion by adding Para-8(a) to the plaint, so as to seek relief of declaration of title and consequential relief of recovery of possession. The suit, accordingly, was proposed to be valued on the basis of 3/4th of the market value of the property and a request for permitting the amendment was made. The said application was opposed by the petitioners/defendants by filing a detailed counter, inter alia by raising a plea that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the amendment application, in view of pecuniary limits and it is open for the plaintiff to file a fresh suit on the allegations now made. 3. Upon consideration of the rival contentions, the Court below allowed the amendment application and aggrieved thereby the present revision petition is preferred by the defendants. 4. Mr. Ramesh Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioners, has raised the jurisdictional issue in the forefront contending that the amendment application, which ousts the jurisdiction of the Court, cannot be entertained by the Court. He submitted that in view of the amended relief sought for by the respondent/plaintiff, the valuation of the suit would get enhanced substantially and, thereby, the Court below would lose it’s pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and based upon the decisions in Lalji V. Narottam[1], Ratan Chand Khanna V. Mahendra Kumar[2], Mst. Zohra Khatoon V. Mohammad Jane Alam and others[3], H.L. Kaka V. Kanhayyalal and others[4] as well as Padmanabha Talkies V. Gowthami Pictures[5], he states that the Court below lacked jurisdiction to entertain such amendment. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners also raised another submission that even according to the affidavit filed by the respondent/plaintiff in support of the amendment application, the suit was coming up for trial and he has filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence on 29.03.2007. The learned counsel, therefore, states that the present amendment application is moved after the trial has commended and, hence, proposed amendment dated 04.06.2007 is not entertainable by the Court and in this regard, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey and another V. Swami Keshavprakeshadasji N. and others[6] 6. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, on the other hand, relied upon the decisions in M/s. Patel Construction & Co. at Bombay and another Vs. M/s. Shah Raichand Amulakh and another[7], Krishna Kumar Khandelwal V. Mangal Prasad[8], Suri Films V. S.N.Govinda Prabhu and Brother[9] as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Chittajallu Janardhan Rao V. Chittajallu Ratnamala[10]. 7. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, based upon the decisions relied upon on by him, is no longer res integra so far as this Court is concerned, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court referred to in Chittajallu Janardhan Rao’s case (10 supra). During the course of hearing, it was not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Court below had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and it may lose its pecuniary jurisdiction, only if the amendment application is allowed. Thus, from the date of institution of the suit including the stage where the Court considers the application for amendment of the plaint, undoubtedly, the Court continues to have jurisdiction. The present case is not a case where the Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to try the suit, unlike the situation which existed in the decisions in Ratan Chand Khanna’s case (2 supra) and Mst. Zohra Khatoon’s case (3 supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, when the Court has inherent jurisdiction to try the suit, it undoubtedly has jurisdiction to consider the amendment application, and if satisfied, it could allow the said application for amendment. Only after allowing the amendment, the Court may lose its pecuniary jurisdiction and such situation is well provided for under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 and Rule 10-A CPC, wherein the Court would return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before proper Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the amendment once allowed would relate back to the date of the suit, is also not correct, inasmuch as in Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey’s case (6 supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court that the said Rule is not of universal application and on the facts and circumstances of each case, it is open for the Court to treat the amendment as being operative from the date on which it is ordered. In any case, so far as the present suit is concerned, the Court below undisputedly has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and would continue to have the said jurisdiction till the application for amendment is ordered. It is only thereafter, since the amended relief would take the pecuniary jurisdiction to a superior Court, that the trial Court would lose its jurisdiction and so far as the amended reliefs are concerned, they would operate and stand allowed from the date on which the amendment application is allowed. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in Chittajallu Janadhan Rao’s case (10 supra) duly considered the judgment on which the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance including the decision of the Nagpur High Court as well as the two decisions of the learned Single Judges of this Court in H.L. Kaka’s case (4 supra) and Padmanabha Talkies’ case (5 supra) and. The Division Bench also noticed the contra view taken by the two other learned Single Judges of this Court in Ramanayyamma V. Kamalakara Rao[11] and Rangarao V. M/s. the American Refrigerator Company[12]. In the later two decisions of the learned Single Judges of this Court, amendment application was held entertainable by the Court, and only after allowing the amendment, when the pecuniary jurisdiction exceeds that of the trial Court, the plaint is required to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the proper Court. The said later view was approved by the Division Bench of this Court in Chittajallu Janadhan Rao’s case (10 supra) and it was held as follows: “We positively hold that the Court must, in such circumstances, take a recourse to liberal and purposive construction or else it would defeat the very object of the Code of Civil Procedure. That apart, as per the accepted cannon, the legal provisions must, as far as possible, be given a positive push through by placing harmonious construction, rather than stultifying and thereby defeating the very object of the provisions so enacted by making a rigid and pedantic approach. Looked at, therefore, from any angle, we have no hesitation in holding that it is certainly competent for the Court of District Munsif to consider the petition for amendment of the plaint and it is only then, if the value of the suit exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court, the course left open to that Court would be to act according to Rule 10 of Order 7 by returning the papers to the party concerned for presentation before the proper forum.” The Division Bench judgment was also followed by another learned Single Judge of this Court in Surabhi Baburao V. Vullingala Suryanarayana[13]. In view of the same, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is liable to be rejected. 9. So far as the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey’s case (6 supra) is clearly distinguished. In the said decision, the parties seeking amendment had not raised any ground to satisfy the due diligence and without giving reasons, particular amendment application was filed. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that the very requirement of Order 6 Rule 17 was not satisfied. Whereas in the facts of the present case, the respondent/plaintiff categorically states that during Summer vacation, he lost possession and on reopening of the Courts i.e. on 04.06.2007 amendment application was filed seeking additional reliefs arising out of the subsequent events. The commencement of the trial in the present case also would not be attracted on facts, inasmuch as, admittedly, neither of the parties nor their witnesses have been examined and the plaintiff has only filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination in March 2007 even before the subsequent events, which necessitated the application for amendment of the plaint. The said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is also liable to be rejected on the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. In the light of the ratio of the Division Bench in Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey’s case (6 supra), the impugned order allowing the amendment does not warrant interference. However it is open for the Court below to return the plaint to the respondent/plaintiff for presentation before the proper Court, under Order 7 Rule 10 or 10-A CPC, if the amended relief now takes the suit out of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. 11. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 30th July, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4768 of 2008 30th July, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4768 of 2008 DATE: 30 .07.2010 Between: Golla Vani and another … Petitioners And Gudipati Veera Venkata Satyanarayana … Respondent [1] AIR 1953 NAGPUR 272 [2] AIR 1979 CALCUTA 55 [3] AIR 1978 CALCUTTA 133 [4] 1980 (1)ANDHRA WEEKLY REPORTER 341 [5] 1971(1) APLJ 375 [6] (2006) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1 [7] AIR 1973 GUJARAT 283 [8] AIR 2006 MADHYA PRADESH 227 [9] AIR 1989 Kerala 28 [10] 1986(2) (HC) APLJ 203 [11] 1982(2) An.W.R. 427 [12] ILR 1971, A.P. 188 [13] 1993 (2) ALT 317