K.S.LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's revision against the order of the learned Munsif, Jetaran, dated 15 -11 -83 by which the plaintff's application for amendment of the plaint has been rejected.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the dparties, on the question of the admission of this revision. The learned Counsel are agreed that the revision may finally be disposed of at this stage. The record of the trial court has already been received. I have perused the same. In view of the order, I am soins to make, I need not state the facts of the case at length. Suffice it to say that the plaintiff Mahant mani Ram Das claims to be the duly appointed or installed Mahant of Gopaldwara, Jetaran being the successor of his Garu Vallabhdaji Maharaj. The defendants, according to the plaintiff, how ever, do not recognize him as such and are interfering with his management of the properties. The plaintiff, therefore, wants a declaration and injunction against the defendants. The prayer made in the plaint is as follows: .........[vernacular ommited text]...........
(3.) THE plaintiff in para 9 of his plaint has valued the suit for the purposes of declaration and injunction at Rs. 400/ - and has a paid a court f Rs. 30/ -. When the summonses of the suit were served upon the defendants, they while filing their written statement, clearly stated that they 3nged the jurisdiction of the court of the Munsif, Jetaran to entertain suit and are not submitting to it. Among other pleas, they alleged the suit related to the properties worth lacs and the plaintiff should valued the suit at the market value of the properties and should also paid court fee accordingly. It was further alleged that looking to the valuation, the suit was not triable by the learned Munsif. On this, the learned trial court framed a preliminary issue about jurisdiction and fixed case for arguments. How ever, thereupon the learned Counsel for the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for permission of the court to amend the plaint. By this application, the plaintiff wanted make amendments in paras 6, 9 and 10 of the plaint. The defendants objected to this application. While the Court was hearing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC the plaintiff's learned Counsel moved still another application for further amendments. After considering the matter, learned Munsif refused the amendments prayed for by the plaintiff on us grounds to which do not think it proper to advert at present. It against this order of the learned Munsif dated 15 -11 -83 that the present ion has been tiled.;