1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4648 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4734 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.18016 OF 2008 Mrs.Sheela Sushilkumar ..Applicant V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Pune..Respondents & anr. Mr.A.M.Joshi, Advocate, for the applicant Mr.S.M.Gorwadkar, Advocate, for the respondents CORAM : C. L. PANGARKAR, J. DATE : 7TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. . Rule. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. 3. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. This First Appeal challenges the Order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pune, dated 12th January, 2006, whereby he rejected the plaint. 2 4. The plaintiff instituted the Suit for injunction and declaration. While the Suit was pending, the plaintiff applied for amendment of the plaint. Accordingly, suit was valued at Rs.6,00,600/-. The learned Judge allowed this application for amendment on 28th September, 2005. Even though the amendment application was allowed, the plaintiff failed to carry out the amendment and to pay necessary Court Fees in pursuance to the amendment. Since the court fees was not paid, the learned Judge of the Trial Court passed an Order on 12th January, 2006, rejecting the plaint itself. It is this Order which is under challenge. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Judge of the Trial Court ought not to have rejected the plaint as a whole. Because the amendment was not carried out the learned Judge could have ignored the amendment itself. He submits that if the amendment was not so 3 carried out, there was no question of the plaintiff paying the court fees. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant. The learned Judge of the Trial Court ought not to have rejected the plaint and ought to have proceeded with the suit as was filed. 5. In view of this, Order dated 12th January, 2006, is set aside. The matter stands remanded back to the Trial Court with a direction to decide the suit as filed, ignoring the amendment application. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. 6. In view of the decision of appeal itself, rest of the Civil Application No.4734 of 2008 does not survive and is disposed of accordingly. (C.L.PANGARKAR, J.) 4