IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Petition No. 740 of 2009 (M/S) Shambhunath …Petitioner Versus Panda Ajay Kumar Agnihotri and another …respondents Mr. K.S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order-dated 22.10.2008 passed by the District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Civil Revision No. 14 of 2008 Shambhunath Versus panda Ajay Kumar and another and the order dated 19.10.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Kashipur in Civil Suit No. 150 of 2007 Panda Ajay Kumar Agnihotri and others Versus Sambhunath whereby the amendment application of the plaintiff- respondents was allowed. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents have filed a suit which was registered as Suit No. 150 of 2007 for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner. The respondents have filed amendment application to amend the plaint. In reply to the amendment application, objection has been filed by the petitioner-defendant before the trial court. It is stated in the objection that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit the only Revenue Court can entertain suit for declaration for the agricultural land. Accordingly to the plaintiff-respondents the defendant- petitioner had constructed boundary wall in the disputed property and the amendment was sought to amend the relief clause as well as the plaint on this ground alone and has 2 also sought the relief for mandatory injunction against the defendant-petitioner. After hearing the respondents as well as petitioner the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kashipur by the order impugned dated 19.10.2007 and to avoided multiplicity of the suit, allowed the amendment application with cost of Rs. 200/- on the ground that the nature of the suit has not been changed by way of amendment. Against the order dated 19.10.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kashipur, the petitioner preferred a revision before the District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar and the revision has also been dismissed by the District Judge, Udham Singh on the same ground. Mr. K.S. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that since the suit is not maintainable before the civil court, the amendment application was also liable to be rejected on the same ground. So far as the plea of jurisdiction is concerned the petitioner-defendant may take this plea by filing written statement and may press his plea before the court concerned. The courts below have not committed any manifest error of law while allowing amendment application. This question whether the court has jurisdiction or not can be decided by the court concerned at the time of the disposal of issue regarding jurisdiction. In view of the above, I find no illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned passed by the courts below. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. (B.S. Verma, J.) 30.06.2009 Virendra