A Civil Court has the jurisdiction to allow amendments to the plaint, even if they result in ousting its own jurisdiction, and the proper course of action in such cases is to return the amended plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - ORDER 6, RULE 17 - COURT'S JURISDICTION - OUSTER - A Civil Court can allow an amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, even if it results in ousting its own jurisdiction, to ensure substantial justice.
Fact of the Case:

A Small Causes Court Judge allowed an amendment to a plaint, changing the basis of the suit from landlord-tenant to title, which was beyond the Small Cause Court's jurisdiction. The amendment was allowed based on a review order that declared the tenancy void ab initio.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that a Civil Court has the jurisdiction to allow amendments to the plaint, even if they result in ousting its own jurisdiction. The proper course of action in such cases is to return the amended plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Issues: Whether a Civil Court can allow an amendment to the plaint that results in ousting its own jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that refusing to allow the amendment solely on the ground that it would deprive the court of jurisdiction would be unjust. The court also noted that returning the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court could lead to unnecessary complications and potential injustice if the amendment was not allowed by that court.
Final Decision: The court answered the reference in the affirmative, holding that a Civil Court can allow an amendment to the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, even if it results in ousting its own jurisdiction, to ensure substantial justice.

JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:---This reference has been made to resolve a conflict on a point-Can a Civil Court under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code allow the plaint to be so amended as to result in ousting its own jurisdiction in the matter. In (M/s. R. Jaikrishna Co. v. A-1 Co-operating Housing Society Limited)1, 1971 Mh.L.J. 472 a Single Bench of this Court took a view that amendment cannot be refused merely on the ground that its effect would be to deprive the Court of jurisdiction to try the suit. Another Single Bench in the case of (M/s. Nareshchandra and Co. v. M/s. New Shriram Motors)2, 1973 Mh.L.J. Note No. 54 C.R.A. No. 413/71 decided on 20th November, 1972 took a contrary view and held that the proper course would be to return the plaint along with an application for amendment to the plaintiff for presentation to the Proper Court.

2. A Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur permitted an amendment of the plaint which had the effect of Converting a simple suit on the basis of a relationship of landlord and a tenant into a suit based on title, which cannot be tried in Small Cause Jurisdiction. Having obtained permission from the Rent Controller a notice of termination of tenancy was given by the plaintiff. On- that basis a small cause suit for ejectment was filed. During the pendency of that suit, the appeal against the order of the Rent Controller was allowed by the Collector. A review petition was filed raising a contention that the tenancy was void ab initio. Review was allowed holding that the proceedings before the Rent Controller under the circumstances were not maintainable and that the orders passed by the Controller as well as the Collector were nullity. The plaintiff by amendment wanted to base the suit on title contending that the order passed in review had become conclusive and, therefore, operated as res judicata. The Judge, Small Causes Court allowed the application and aggrieved thereby this revisional application come to be filed in High Court. It is during the course of hearing of this Civil Revision that the conflict was noticed and hence this reference was made.

3. It is apparent that Jaikrishna (supra) was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge who decided Nareshchandra (supra). Moreover it appears that there is conflict of views on this point in other High Court also. Having regard to the letter and spirit of Order 6, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure and the interest of substantial Justice, it seems to us that the Jaikrishna represents the correct legal position viz. that Court has ample jurisdiction to pass suitable orders on the application; and in case the amendment is allowed and carried out, the proper course to be followed is to return the amended plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court under Order 7, Rule 10 C.P.C. Here are our reasons :

4. Only other courses open for being adopted in such matter is either to return the plaint along with the amended application to be presented to the proper Court or to reject the application outright. Former alternative has the potentiality of creating unnecessary complications and shutting a litigant from one Court to other. What happens when the amendment is not allowed by the Court to whom matter is presented ? The later alternative has the potentiality of leading to grave injustice. The amendment application may be meritorious but has to be rejected only because it, results in ousting the jurisdiction of the Court.

5. This leads us to examination of the possible objections to the grant of such application. Return of plaint for presentation to proper Court is governed by Order 7, Rule 10 C.P.C. Till that stage arrives, Court having jurisdiction over the suit as originally presented is empowered to deal with it as per Orders 4, 5 and 6 C.P.C. respectively relating to institution, issue and service of summons and pleadings. We fail to see as to how exception could be made only with relation to a particular a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis