NISHIT CHANDRA GHOSH Vs. BIDHU BHUSAN GHOSH
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
NISHIT CHANDRA GHOSH
BIDHU BHUSAN GHOSH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This appeal is by the defendant in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and is directed against the common judgment and order dated May 16, 1983 of Dipak Kumar Sen, J. whereby the learned Judge dismissed the application of the defendant for taking the plaint off the file and allowed the application of the plaintiff for the amendment of the plaint.
(2.) In paragraph 26 of the plaint, the suit was valued by the plaintiff at Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction and Court fee. It is not disputed that at the relevant time, a suit in the Original Side of this Court would lie only if the value of the subject-matter of the suit or of the reliefs claimed therein exceed Rs.50,000/-. As on the face of the plaint the suit was not maintainable and/or this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and hear the suit, the defendant made an application, inter alia, praying for taking the plaint off the file. After the said application was filed by the defendant, the plaintiff also filed an application for amendment of the plaint praying that instead of the figure Rs.50,000/-, the figure Rs.50,100/- should be inserted in the body of the plaint as the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and Court fee. It was alleged in the said application for amendment that "through typing mistake in paragraph 26 of the plaint the suit was valued at Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.50,100/- and the said mistake was brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court when an application was made". By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Judge, as stated already, dismissed the said application of the defendant, but allowed the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint accepting the plaintiff's case of a typographical mistake in the statement of the value of the suit in paragraph 26 of the plaint, that is to say, Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.50,100/-. Hence, this appeal by the defendant.
(3.) So far as this Court is concerned it has been uniformly held that if the suit is valued at a sum, which is less than or beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of any Court, that Court cannot entertain the suit even for the purpose of amendment of the plaint for bringing the suit within such jurisdiction. In such a case, the only thing for the Court to do is to direct return of the plaint for presentation to proper court [See in (1) Ratan Chand Khanna v. Mahendra Kumar, AIR 1979 Cal. 55; (2) Vabakktha Gopal Pillai & Vasudeva Pillai v. National Small Industries Corporation Ltd., AIR 1979 Cal 107 and (3) Mst. Zohra Khatoon v. Janah Mohammad Jane Alam & Ors., AIR 1978 Cal133 (DB)].;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.