1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LPA NO. 95 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2100 OF 2008 (Vinayak Shrawan Dhanvijay vs. Smt. Vilasibai wd/o Haribhau Dhanvijay & Ors.) 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 & F.M. REIS, JJ. AUGUST 07, 2009. Heard Shri Bhangde, learned counsel for the appellant – original defendant and Shri Dubey, Advocate holding for Shri Ninawe, learned counsel for the respondents. In a suit for declaration of title and injunction filed against the appellant – original defendant, the appellant – defendant filed Regular Civil Appeal challenging the decree passed against him and in appeal, moved application, seeking to amend written statement to give details as to how suit has not been properly valued. The valuation on the face of plaint is under Section 6 (iv)(J) of Bombay Court Fee Act. The appellant – defendant wanted to point out that it should have been at the market value of the property under Section 6 (iv)(d) of Bombay Court Fee Act. The appellate Court rejected that application and appellant then filed writ petition which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 2 The learned counsel for the appellant contends that in written statement, valuation of suit was pointed out to be incorrect and in appeal only the details of that error were sought to be given. It is further pointed out that as suit was of the year 2000, the requirement of proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code was not relevant. Though the learned Single Judge found that said proviso was not attracted, its spirit has been applied and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court has been distinguished on the ground that there amendment was sought before the trial Court itself. Having heard the learned counsel, we find that effort is to show that the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Umred, lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is obvious that in view of Section 21 of Civil Procedure Code, the amendment could not have been allowed and there is no argument of any prejudice caused to the appellant. Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.