THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3232 and 3233 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners filed O.S.No.185 of 2004 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa against the respondents for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. Initially, the value of the suit was shown as Rs.4,00,000/- and fixed Court fee of Rs.200/- was paid. At a later stage, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1012 of 2005 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. with a prayer to permit them to amend the plaint, particularly, the paragraph relating to the valuation. It was urged that certain items of property need to be included and in that view of the matter, the value was sought to be enhanced to Rs.5,23,000/-. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through its order, dated 22.12.2005. The suit was, ultimately, dismissed on 09.09.2008. Thereupon, the petitioners presented an appeal before the Court of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa. The appeal was returned by the appellate Court pointing out that the decree under appeal does not contain the valuation of the suit and necessary steps need to be taken in this regard. Mention was also made about the jurisdiction of the trial Court in the event of the amendment being carried out. The petitioners filed I.A.Nos.183 and 184 of 2009 under Section 152 C.P.C. with a prayer to cause necessary corrections/amendments in the plaint and decree respectively. The respondents opposed the application. Through its common order, dated 02.05.2009, the trial Court dismissed the applications. Hence, these revisions. Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the value of the suit was amended, through order in I.A.No.1012 of 2005 and that on account of inadvertent mistake or otherwise, the trial Court has drawn a decree without indicating the value. He contends that it is within the competence and power of the trial Court to amend the decree and the applications were rejected on technical ground, without taking into account the order in I.A.No.1012 of 2005. Sri N.Parameswara Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners were not diligent in prosecuting the proceedings. He contends that though the amendment as prayed for in I.A.No.1012 of 2005 was ordered, necessary steps were not taken. He further contends that in the event of the amendment being carried out, it would emerge that the trial Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The suit, as initially presented by the petitioners, was with the valuation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Fixed Court fee of Rs.200/- was paid. By pleading certain reasons, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1012 of 2005 seeking substitution of the value of the suit with a new figure, Rs.5,23,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioners has made available a copy of the order, dated 22.12.2005, passed by the trial Court allowing the I.A. The suit was dismissed. In the decree drawn by the trial Court, the value of the suit was not at all indicated. The relevant place was left blank. The petitioners hardly have any say in the matter. They presented the appeal against the decree as was made available to them. The lower appellate Court took objection. While pointing out the defect or incomplete nature of the decree, an observation was also made to the effect that if the amendment through order, dated 22.12.2005, passed in I.A.No.1012 of 2005 is carried out, the trial Court would lose the jurisdiction. It needs to be mentioned that it was purely an observation and not a finding on the merits of the matter. The petitioners, in turn, approached the trial Court with the applications under Section 152 C.P.C. It is not as if they wanted the amendment as to the value of the suit for the first time. Their effort was only to ensure that the amendment that was ordered in I.A.No.1012 of 2005 is given effect to, be it in the plaint or the decree. The trial Court dismissed the applications firstly, on the ground that no proceedings are pending before it and secondly, that it would lose the jurisdiction, in case the amendment is ordered. Both the reasons mentioned by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law. The occasion to file an application under Section 152 C.P.C. would arise only after the suit is disposed of and it is not necessary that the proceedings must be pending for an application under that provision to be made. So far as the second reason is concerned, it is not as if the petitioners approached the Court with the figure, Rs.5,20,000/- for the first time through the instant applications. That figure was very much mentioned in I.A.No.1012 of 2005 and the trial Court accepted it. If at all the amendment is to result in loss of pecuniary jurisdiction by the trial Court, that occurred when the I.A. was allowed. Having permitted the amendment and tried the suit on merits, the trial Court cannot take such a view. At any rate, the situation would be taken care of, by Section 99 C.P.C. Hence, the civil revisions are allowed and the order under revisions is set aside. The trial Court is directed to reflect the value of the suit as amended through order, dated 22.12.2005, in I.A.No.1012 of 2005, in the plaint as well as the decree. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:11.08.2009 kdl