Decided on September 17,1969


Cited Judgements :-



- (1.)This is a petition under Section 115 C. P. C. for revising an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in I. A. No. 3602 of 1968, in an unnumbered suit allowing an amendment of the plaint. The facts in brief are as follows : Defendants 1 and 2 are the petitioners herein. The plaintiff is the sole respondent. I shall refer to thke ranks of the parties as plaintiff and defendants lor convenience sake. The plaintiff filed O. S. No. 140/67 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Vijayawada against three defendants for a permanent injunction restraining them from screening any picture other than 'Nirdhosi' during the period of 100 days and also the period during which the daily collections from the said picture did not fall below the hold over figure of Rs. 250/- per day for two consecutive days in fair weather. Along with the said plaint, the plaintiff filed I. A No. 267/67, for the grant of a temporary injunction. Aninterim order was passed directing that status quo should be maintained. Subsequently a final order waspassed granting a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from screen ing any other picture. As the Subordinate Judge's Court was closed during the summer vacation, the defendants preferred an appeal to the High Court against the said final order and moved for suspension of the temporary injunction This Court directed that the appeal should be received and retransmitted and passed an interim order ot suspension of the temporary injunction. One of the main objections raised by the defendants to the grant of temporary injunction by the Munsif Court in the Counter affidavit filed in I. A. No. 267/67 as well as the affidavit filed in support of the suspension of the injunction and in the written statement is that the compensation in money would afford adequate relief to the plaintiff and that the grant of injunction was not necesssary or proper in the circumstances of the case. It was alleged that even before the final orders were passed in I. A. No, 267/67 by the District Munsif's court, the defendants disobeyed the interim order passed by that Court and terminated the screening of the picture 'Nirdhoshi' and took up the screening of another picture by name 'Alu Magalu". In view of the defence taken by the defendants that the injunction was not the proper remedy and that compensation in money would afford adequate relief and in a sumuch as the defendants had by their act of terminating the screening of the picture 'Nirdboshi' and taking up the screening of the other picture, brought about a new state of facts, the plaintiff filed an application I. A. No. 3602/68, for amendment of the plaint for including a prayer for damages for breach of the suit contract committed by the defendants. The relief of damages was valued at Rs. 12,500/- and a Court fee of Rs. 935/-was paid thereon. This application for amendment was opposed by the defendants on various grounds. Inasmuch as the amendment would take the suit out of the jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court the learned District Munsif returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.
(2.)Thereafter the plaintifi presented the plaint along with the application for amendment to the Sub-Court, Vijayawada. The Sub- Court took up the application for amendment for consideration in the first instance even before the suit was numbered and held that the amendment was necessitated by an event brought out by the defendant themselves, that the relief of damages claimed as an alternative relief was warranted by statutory provisions of Section 40 (2) of the Specific Relief Act and that the amendment would Dot introduce any new or inconsistent case and accordingly allowed the application for amendment as prayed for. The defendants have now come up in revision to this Court.
(3.)Sri T. Anantha Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners before me raised a new point namely that the learned District Munsif having found that the amendment prayed for would take the suit out of its jurisdiction was not competent to return the plaint but should have dismissed the suit and that the Sub-Court also had no jurisdic tion to consider the application for amendment, which if allowed would bring the suit within its jurisdiction In support of his contention Sri T. Anantha Babu relied upon two decisions of the Madras High Court - Govinda Raja Naicker Vs. Khasim Sakeb and others and Mutyalamma Vs. Narayanaswamy, Sri Ananta Babu also cited rulings in support of the proposition that a Court not having juris' diction cannot allow an amendment so as to bring it within its jurisdiction,

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.