THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.M.A.No. 599 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal, under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against an order made in O.S. No. 196 of 1999 on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole dated 10.4.2003. A peculiar situation arose in this case. Initially, appellant herein laid a suit for partition before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole and the value of the suit was shown as Rs.5,10,000/- and, in view of the fact that he claimed half of the share, the suit was entertained. Defendants appeared, written statement filed and issues were framed. Thereafter, appellant-plaintiff filed I.A. No. 536 of 2002 seeking amendment of the plaint for inclusion of some more items and gave valuation as Rs.5,10,000/-, and, after the amendment was carried by an order dated 17.4.2002, I.A. 536 of 2002 was allowed. However, after the amendment was carried out, the plaint was returned on the ground that the Court lost its pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore, the plaint was presented before the District Court. The District Court, on an examination of the matter, found that even after amendment, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court does not loose its pecuniary jurisdiction over the suit and, therefore, returned the plaint for being presented before the proper Court. Thus, the plaint was again presented before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Ongole. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, by an order dated 10.4.2003 again returned the same on the ground that when the plaint was before the said Court by virtue of amendment carried out by unauthorized corrections, the said plaint cannot be re-entertained by that Court and the return made by that Court vide order dated 16.7.2002 holds good even as on that date, as far as the said Court is concerned. Further, it was held, that the plaint, in so far as the said Court is concerned, would be the plaint as amended as per the orders in I.A. No. 536 of 2002. That being so, the plaint cannot be re-entertained by that Court and the plaintiff is directed to adopt the same valuation and accordingly deal with the matter as advised as per the return made by that Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff strenuously contended that even after the amendment was sought for inclusion of some items in the partition suit, the value of the suit for the purpose of the share claimed by the appellant-plaintiff remains within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Ongole, the said claim being Rs.2,34,201/-, which is less than the value of Rs.5.00 lakhs and, therefore, necessarily the learned Senior Civil Judge’s Court should deal with the case. Merely because the value of the suit was amended by making it more than Rs.6.00 lakhs, that does not mean that the jurisdiction lies with the District Court. What exactly is the claim of the plaintiff and what is the value of his share are to be taken into consideration for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction but not the value of the entire property involved in the partition. Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute this proposition seriously. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am in full agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Ongole is directed to take the plaint on to its file and decide the same on its own merits, as per law. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 1-7-2010. MVB.