IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 6813 of 2007(J) -------------------------------------- O.S.NO.1627/05 OF 1ST ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM. ................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. JOSEPH MARTIN, S/O. AUGUSTIN FERNANDEZ, VICTORY HOUSE, LAYAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. UNNIMERY, W/O. REJOY ALFES, GLORIA, H.M.C. LANE, KADAVANTHARA ROAD, COCHIN-17. BY ADV. MR.ABRAHAM JOHN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. BLASSIUICE, S/O. VACCO, KUNNUKKASSERIL HOUSE, MULLASSERY CANAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. ERNAKULAM URBAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NUMBER-7, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R2 BY ADV. MR.V.G.ARUN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.6813/2007 J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS I.A.9447/06 DTD. 10/10/06. P2: COPY OF THE SAID APPLICATION I.A.1063/06 DTD. 28/10/06. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 31/10/06. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 3/11/06 REJECTING THE PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 (C) OF C.P.C. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.6813 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 8th September, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: 1. To issue a writ of certiorari or other writ order to quash Ext.P4 order. 2. To issue a writ of mandamus to the 1st Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam to take up the file relating to O.S.No.1627/05 and return the same in accordance with law for presentation before the proper court. 3. To direct the respondents to pay the cost of the proceedings to the petitioners. 2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1627 of 2005 on the file of the 1st Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. Suit is filed for cancellation of a document and to declare that an encumbrance created over the property covered by the document is void. Pursuant to contentions raised in the written statement that the valuation shown in the plaint is incorrect, the plaintiffs got the plaint amended by which the valuation exceeded the pecuniary limits of the court. The learned Munsiff after carrying out of the amendment directed the plaintiffs to pay the full court fee on the amended plaint. Plaintiffs W.P.C.No.6813/07 - 2 - filed an application to review that order. The review petition was dismissed and by P4 order the court below rejected the plaint. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the Writ Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though an appeal is provided against rejection of a plaint, since the suit has already been amended and the valuation shown in the plaint was Rs.Five lakhs, an appeal from the order rejecting the plaint by the Munsiff Court could not be preferred before the District Court and in that contingency the present Writ Petition invoking the visitorial jurisdiction of this court was pursued. Learned counsel further submitted that once an amendment is carried out and such amendment exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, after carrying out such amendment, the court has no power or authority to direct payment of court fee or pass any orders in the suit since it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter involved in the suit. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent fairly conceded that the proposition canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners W.P.C.No.6813/07 - 3 - cannot be objected to at all. Of course, a right of appeal is provided against rejection of a plaint as provided under Order 43 Rule 1(a) of the C.P.C.; but, still where it is noticed that after the amendment was permitted and carried out in the plaint, by which the jurisdiction of that court was ousted, the learned Munsiff had passed the impugned order, this court in exercise of visitorial jurisdiction is expected to and bound to correct that jurisdictional infirmity by passing appropriate orders. In Suri Films v. S.N.Govinda Prabhu (AIR 1989 Kerala 28) this court has held in unmistakable terms that even when the amendment application moved by a plaintiff envisages valuation beyond the pecuniary limit of the court, the court before which the suit is presented is competent to entertain and dispose of that application by which, on carrying out such amendment, its jurisdiction will be ousted. But, once after the amendment is allowed, that court has to return the amended plaint for presentation before the proper court. After carrying out the amendment, the court which allowed that amendment, by virtue of which its jurisdiction is ousted, has no authority or competency to pass any order directing payment of court fee on the amended suit claim or pass any other order other than returning the amended plaint for presentation before the proper W.P.C.No.6813/07 - 4 - court. Orders for payment of balance court fee on the amended plaint can be passed only by the court having jurisdiction to entertain the amended plaint as and when it is presented before that court. The orders passed by the court below directing the plaintiffs to pay court fee on the amended plaint is per se illegal. That order as well as the order passed on the review petition moved by the petitioners is set aside. The court below is directed to return the plaint to the petitioners/plaintiffs for presentation before the competent court on production of a copy of this judgment. Writ Petition is disposed as above. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE