( 1 ) A petition for amendment of his written statement filed by the petitioner was returned by the office of the trial Court on the following grounds:- (1) How this petition is maintainable shall be stated. (2) Notice to be given to the other side. It was represented with the following endorsement: "question of pecuniary jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and can be raised any time and Order 7 Rule 10 (1) is an indication thereof. For the valuation adopted in the plaint being upward of rs. 5,00,000/-, this suit should have been filed in District Judge s Court. Hence, the objection to jurisdiction being vital, the petition is maintainable. "office of the trial Court again returned the petition with the following endorsement:"how this petition is maintainable when the order pronounced on 9-8-2000 on merits on the file of the I Additional district Judge, Nellore, shall be stated. "it was represented with the following endorsement:"the learned Additional District Judge did not go into pecuniary jurisdictional aspect at all. It was not properly urged. The order dated 9-8-2000 took into view endowments Act and did not consider as on that date the Sub-Court could have entertained. The present plea was not put forward in the previous arguments. The plea raised in the subsequent petition involves interpretation of Section 2 (8) r/w sec. 24 (a) of Act 30/87 and A. P. C. F. Act. The earlier order is no bar. If any doubt is entertained matter may be referred to High Court u/s 113 Cr. P. C. "again, the petition was returned by the office on 20-7-2001 with the following endorsement:"as seen from the plaint and order, dated 9-8-2000, the plea was already taken. Hence, how this petition is maintainable shall be stated. "it was represented with the following endorsement. "according to me, the point involved is the shift and statutory change in pecuniary jurisdictional limits as per 1972 Civil Courts Act which intervened act 17/66 and Act 30/87, and Sec. 2 (8) of Act 17/66 is merely incorporated in act 30/87 by the Statute and the underlying intention was to preserve the unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction which suffered a change in 1972. It is phacet of the case, I am afraid to state was neither urged before the Hon ble district Judge nor was even so considered. To consider this phacet, the order dated 9-8-2000 is no bar. I pray the matter be called in public Court on 21-7-2005 for submissions. "

( 2 ) IT is stated that thereafter, the petition was kept in the suit bundle without its being numbered or being heard at the bench on the question of its maintainability. Hence, this petition.

( 3 ) MANY contentions regarding the merits are raised before me by the learned Counsel for the parties. In my considered opinion, all those contentions need not and cannot be gone into at this stage because they have to be considered and decided by the trial Court and since this petition is filed alleging inaction on the part of the trial Court in numbering the petition.

( 4 ) BEFORE proceeding further I am constrained to observe that returning of petition by the trial Courts on number of occasions is improper. All the objections have to be taken in the first return only but they cannot be taken piece meal. The office of the trial Court is required to see whether the petition is in accordance with the C. P. C. and Civil Rules of Practice and Limitation act. It is not concerned with the merits of the case which can be decided only by the Court.

( 5 ) MAINTAINABILITY of the petition under order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C. in a suit instituted in 1999 i. e. , prior to the enforcement of 1999 and 2002 C. P. C. Amendment Acts cannot be doubted in view of Section 16 (ii) (b) of C. P. C. Amendment Act, 2002. So if the Office had any doubt about the maintainability of the petition on other grounds it should be called at the bench for being decided judicially by the Presiding Officer. Since numbering of proceedings is but a ministerial, but not a judicial act, Office cann

Click Here to Read the rest of this document