Back
Karnataka High Court
Laxmi Bai - Appellant
Versus
Kamalaksha G.Nayak - Respondent
Decided On : 06-01-93
C.R.P. : 4783 of 1992
Jurisdiction - Amendment of Plaint - Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1989 - Section 17, Section 4(1)(b) - The court had jurisdiction to consider and allow the amendment application even though the suit had been transferred to the Munsiff's Court by virtue of the amendment Act. The impugned order was not without jurisdiction and the court had the power to pass orders even though it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The impugned order was essentially a just order and did not cause any prejudice to the defendants.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants, alleging part performance of an agreement to sell a property. The suit was initially filed before the Civil Judge, but due to an amendment in the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, the suit was transferred to the Munsiff's Court. The plaintiff then filed an application for amendment of the plaint seeking specific performance of the agreement and to amend the value of the suit for jurisdiction and Court-fee. The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing that the Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the application or to pass any order on it.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Civil Judge had jurisdiction to consider and allow the amendment application, even after the suit had been transferred to the Munsiff's Court. The court held that the impugned order was not without jurisdiction and that the court had the power to pass orders even though it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The court also found that the impugned order was essentially a just order and did not cause any prejudice to the defendants.
Issues: 1. Whether the Civil Judge had jurisdiction to consider or allow the amendment sought for by the plaintiff after the suit had been transferred to the Munsiff's Court? 2. Whether the court should exercise its discretion under Section 115 C. P. C. to set aside the impugned order?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Civil Judge had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and that the order was essentially a just order that did not cause any prejudice to the defendants. The court also emphasized that the object of procedural laws is to expedite proceedings and that the court should not take a pedantic view of procedural rules.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the impugned order and finding that it was a just order that did not cause any prejudice to the defendants.
( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed by defendants 1 to 4 in O. S. 201 of 1985, on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore against his order dated 24/09/1992, allowing I. A. No. VIII and permitting the plaintiff (1st respondent herein) to amend the plaint, as sought for by him.
( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 2 to 4 herein are defendants 5 to 7 in the lower Court. For the purpose of convenience the parties will be referred to by the rank they hold in the lower Court.
( 3 ) THE facts, giving raise to this petition, may briefly be stated as hereunder: the plaintiff filed a suit in O. S. 201/85, on the file of the Civil Judge, Mangalore, against the defendants, who are the wife and children of one late K. Rama Rao for a declaration that he is entitled to continue in possession of the suit property by virtue of part performance of an agreement to sell dated 5-5-1978 executed by Rama Rao and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the suit property. He alleged in the plaint that Rama Rao agreed to sell the suit property to him for Rs. 49,500/- and received a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - out of the consideration; that he was also put in possession of the suit property in part performance of the contract; that however Rama Rao died before the execution of the sale deed and that the defendants were now trying to interfere with his possession of the property.
( 4 ) THE defendants admitted the execution of the agreement as well as receipt of Rs. 20,000/- by Rama Rao but they denied that the plaintiff was put in possession of the property in part performance of the agreement. The suit was valued at Rs. 24,750/- for the purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction. As at that time it was the Civil Judge who had the pecuniary jurisdiction to try that suit it was filed before him. The Karnataka Civil Courts Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called the 'amendment Act'), received the assent of the Governor on 20-1-1989 and it came into force immediately. Section 17 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act (hereinafter called the 'act') was amended by substituting the words "fifty thousand rupees" for the words "ten thousand rupees". By virtue of this amendment the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of the Munsif was raised from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 50,000/ -. Section 4 (1) of the Amendment Act contains a provision for transfer of suits and appeals which were pending on the date the Amendment Act came into force. Section 4 (1) (b) which is relevant for this case, reads as under:
( 5 ) TRANSFER of Suits and Appeals.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Karnataka Act 11 of 1964 or Karnataka Act 21 of 1964 or in any other law or provisions having the force of law,- (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) original suits and proceedings of a civil nature the amount or value of the subject matter of which does not exceed fifty thousand rupees pending before the Court of a Civil Judge shall, on the date of commencement of this Act stand transferred to the Court of the Munsiff and shall be disposed of by such Court in accordance with law as if such suits or proceedings concerned had been instituted or commenced in such Court. "though the Amendment Act came into force in 1989 itself, neither the parties nor the Court had noticed that the suit in question stood transferred to the Munsiff's Court and the proceedings continued before the Civil Judge. It would appear that sometime in 1992 the Court noticed that the suit had to be sent to the Munsiff's Court in view of the amendment of S. 17 of the Act. It is then that the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint to seek the relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell and to amend the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and Court-fee to Rs. 74,250/ -. The defendants opposed the amendment sought for on various grounds. Though one of the objections was that the amendment, if allowed, would take aw
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
