R S PARMAR Vs. DY HOUSING COMMISSIONER RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant submitted a complaint against the opposite parties before the District Forum, Kota. The opposite parties raised certain preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint. One of the objections was that the cost of the house is more than Rs.1,00,000/- and as such the District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The District Forum by its order dated 11.2.91 held that it has no jurisdiction to hear the complaint and so it should be returned to the complainant for presentation before a competent Court. On an endorsement being made on the complaint about its return, the complainant presented the complaint before the State Commission.

(2.) It may be stated that the District Forum fixed 15.3.91 as a date for hearing of the complaint before the State Commission. It is how this complaint is before us. When this complaint was taken up today Mr. M. S. Bhargava, learned counsel for the complainant submitted an application stating that the complainant withdrawals the prayer for compensation and since the original cost fixed for the house by the opposite parties was Rs.42,000/- and the house was allotted to the allottees of the same year at the cost of Rs.93,000/- , the District Forum has jurisdiction after relinquishment of the claim regarding compensation. It was also mentioned that the order for the return of the complaint was passed by two members only and a prayer made to consider the request for the withdrawal of the prayer of compensation was not heeded to. The complainant has stated that he is withdrawing the prayer for compensation and after the withdrawal of the prayer for the grant of compensation, the complaint can be entertained by the District Forum. It is stated that the complaint may be returned to the complainant for representation to the District Forum, Kota.

(3.) We have carefully considered the prayer made by the complainant in the application. It is settled that where a Court returns a plaint for presentation to the proper Court on the ground that it was beyond its jurisdiction, the plaintiff is entitled to relinquish a portion of the claim, so as to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the former Court and to represent the plaint in the same Court. Reference may be made. The reasoning given in that case is applicable to the case on hand. This matter was considered again in. The learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court held that under the law a plaintiff is not prevented from amending the plaint which has been returned to him and to represent it to the Court which would have jurisdiction to entertain the amended plaint. It was also held that in such a case no question of an abuse of the process of the Court is involved.