AMARESHWAR SAHAY,J. - (1.) WITH the consent of the parties, this revision application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
(2.) HEARD Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. In this revision application the petitioners has challenged the order dated 25/8/2003 passed by the Sub -Judge -I, Jamtara in Title Suit No. 55/2000 whereby the learned Sub -Judge -I rejected the petition of the plaintiff filed under Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint. From the impugned order it appears that the learned Sub -Judge has rejected the prayer on two grounds. Firstly, that if the amendment is allowed it will change the character of the suit and secondly, that the suit property was valued less than Rs. 500/ - and if the prayer for amendment was allowed then it will confer the jurisdiction on him to try the suit, which he did not have and, therefore, the Court having no jurisdiction cannot allow any amendment to bring the suit within its jurisdiction.
(3.) MR . A.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the petition under Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C, filed by the petitioner, which have been annexed as Annexure -2 to this application and submitted that by the proposed amendment only clerical errors and typing mistakes were prayed to be rectified and, therefore, it is wrong to say that by allowing the said amendment the character of the suit would change. Mr. Sinha, further submitted that according to Regulation -9 of Santhal Parganas Justice Regulation, 1893 a Subordinate Judge has already been conferred jurisdiction to try a suit, the value of which exceeds Rs. 500/ -and, therefore, the learned Court below has wrongly held that by allowing the proposed amendment it will confer him the jurisdiction which he did not have.;