SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for revision by the plaintiff Ganga Bux and arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 2120/- against the opposite party. The suit was presented in the court of the Munsif, Bandi Kui on the 29th August, 1950. Before the aforesaid date, the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance 1950 had come into force and sec. 19 (1) thereof Munsif's pecuniary jurisdiction in suits was not to exceed Rs. 2000/ -. The suit was, therefore, obviously beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif.
(2.) NO objection was taken on the ground of jurisdiction in the written statement, but the defendant took an objection on the 1st of May, 1951, that the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. After this date, the plaintiff filed an application on the 13th of August, 1951, stating that he abandoned the claim to the extent of Rs. 120/- and that he might be permitted to value his suit at Rs. 2000/- only. The learned Munsif did not pass any separate order on this application of the plaintiff, but after hearing the parties on the point of jurisdiction, ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper court. Against the above order of the learned Munsif, the plaintiff appellant went in appeal to the court of the District Judge, Jaipur District, but his appeal was dismissed. The plaintiff has now come in revision to this Court. I have heard the arguments of Mr. D. M. Bhandari on behalf of the applicant and Mr. G. G. Kasliwal on behalf of the opposite party. Mr. Bhandari was unable to produce any ruling which might directly be favourable to the plaintiff in this case. However, he relied upon a ruling of Bombay High Court in the case of Mahant Narsidasji Balmukanddasji and others vs. Bai Jamna (1) (AIR, 1939 Bom. 354.), in which it was held that: - "prima facie, Order 7, Rule 11 is mandatory only rebus sic stantibus, that is to say, when the court has to deal simply with the position referred to in the Rule and would not preclude an amendment of the plaint which under Order 6, Rule 17 may be made at any stage of the proceedings". In that case the plaint was insufficiently stamped and the plaintiff was ordered to pay court fee at Rs. 42,000/- and a fortnight was given for the payment of the deficiency. Subsequently, time was extended by a month and then another week. In the meantime, the plaintiff made an application for amending the plaint by dropping the prayer for future maintenance, and this was allowed. In view of the dropping of the prayer for future maintenance, the valuation of the suit was reduced to such an extent that the court fee already paid was sufficient. The case was then disposed of on merits. In appeal it was contended on behalf of the defendant that the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code were mandatory and the plaint ought to have been rejected when the court fee was not paid within time allowed and the plaint ought not to have been amended. It was held that the language of the rule did not preclude an amendment of the plaint which under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code could be made at any stage of proceedings. To my mind this ruling does not apply to the facts of the present case. In that case no question of jurisdiction was involved and the same court had a jurisdiction in the case after the amendment as well as without the amendment. In the present case the court had no jurisdiction in the suit as originally valued and it could have jurisdiction only after the amendments were allowed. On behalf of the opposite party my attention has been drawn to the judgments of Allahabad and Madras High Courts in the case of Tirkha vs. Ghasi Ram (2) (AIR, 1935 All. 842.), and Very Motyalamma alias Murtyalu and others vs. Dasary Narayanaswamy and others (3) (AIR, 1949 Mad. 719. ). In the Allahabad case, the suit was valued at Rs. 553/8/- and was filed in the court of Small Causes, the pecuniary jurisdiction of which did not exceed Rs. 500/ -. An objection was taken in the written statement that the court had no jurisdiction. The plaintiff, thereupon, filed an application for amendment of the plaint by reducing the sum claimed to Rs. 500/ -. This application was allowed and the court proceeded to try the suit and ultimately passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. It was held by Kendall, J. in revision that the lower court had no jurisdiction to allow the application for amendment and thus bring the suit within its jurisdiction. It was observed that the plaintiff had a right to amend his plaint after it had been returned to him by the court, but the court had no right to direct the amendment of a plaint when it had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the plaint. In the Madras case, it was held that it is not ordinarily open to the court though there might be exceptional circumstances which might justify this course to allow an amendment of any plaint which might help to bring a doubtful plaint, really within the jurisdiction of a higher court, within its own jurisdiction. It is ordinarily its duty to decide its own jurisdiction to try the original plaint filed before it. Both these decisions are directly in favour of the defendant and support the view taken by both the lower courts. Mr. Bhandari also made a passing reference to a rulling of Madras High Court in the case of Karumbayiru Ponnapundan vs. Authimoola Ponna-pundan (1) (ILR 33 Mad. 262. ). But that case is distinguishable from the present case inasmuch as the plaintiff in that case himself made amendment in the plaint after it had been returned to him and then presented it in the same court after bringing the valuation within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. In that case there was no question whether the court had any jurisdiction to bring the case within its jurisdiction by allowing application for amendment and reducing the original valuation. Mr. Bhandari also referred to the case of Thadi Chendrayya and others vs. Vaitha Seethanna and others (2) (AIR 1939 Mad. 397. ). But in that case also there was no question whether a court which had no jurisdiction in the plaint filed, could, by allowing application for amendment bring the suit within its jurisdiction by reducing the valuation. In that case the plaint had been returned for presentation to the proper court but the plaintiff himself after reducing the claim to a figure which brought it within the jurisdiction of the previous court represented it to the same court. The question that came for decision was whether the plaint might be treated as a continuation of the original suit. Under the peculiar circumstances of that case, it was held that the modified claim could be treated as a continuation of the original suit. I am not satisfied that there is any reason to hold that the order of the lower courts regarding return of plaint for presentation to the proper court was not correct. The application for revision is dismissed with costs. . ;