1 WP 7336/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7336 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. S.M. Kamble for the petitioners. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 7TH DECEMBER 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The writ petition is directed against an order dated 19th July 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Uran allowing the application of the respondents (original plaintiffs) for amendment of the plaint. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Court of Civil Judge, Junior 2 WP 7336/10 Division would not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit which would go beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. Firstly, there is a dispute as to whether the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division would have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit as amended. In the amended plaint, the respondents have valued the suit under section 6(4)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act at Rs. 1000/-. If the said valuation is correct, the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division had a jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit as amended. It therefore cannot be said that ex- facie the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division would not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit as amended. If the issue regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction is raised at the trial or before trial by an appropriate application, the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division would be required to decide the issue about its own jurisdiction. In my view, therefore, the application for amendment should have been 3 WP 7336/10 rejected on the ground that the Civil Judge, Junior Division would not have a jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit as amended. 4. Even if it is assumed that the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division would lose the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit after amendment, proper course at that stage would be to return the plaint for presentation to the appropriate court and not to reject the application for amendment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the proposed amendment would alter the nature of the suit. In my view, the proposed amendment does not alter the nature of the suit. 6. For these reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)