A court has the power to allow the amendment of a plaint to correct a mistake in valuation, even if the mistake results in the suit being initially filed in a court that lacks pecuniary jurisdiction.

ORDER :- The plaintiff instituted the above suit against the defendant for refund of the earnest money of Rs. 24,447.00 p. for inquiry into damages and decree for the amount found due and other reliefs. Subsequent to the institution of the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Ch. XIII-A of O. S. Rules for a summary judgement against the defendant who contested the said application. The application was heard by the Honble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji on 4-8-1977 and it was directed inter alia that the defendant would file written statement and contest the suit. All the directions in the order dated 4-8-1977 were duly complied with by the parties and the suit appeared in the Peremptory list. At the hearing the defendant pointed out that this Court could not entertain the suit as the same was below its pecuniary jurisdiction. The suit has been valued at Rs. 1050/- on the ground that this Court along with the Presidency Small Causes Court have concurrent jurisdiction to try this suit. It was contended on behalf of the defendant that the suit was, in fact, for refund of the alleged earnest money of Rs. 24,447.00 and as such this Court should not entertain this suit. On behalf of the plaintiff it was submitted that there was an obvious error or mistake in valuing the suit. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff prayed for time to amend the plaint and the prayer was granted. In the present application the plaintiff prayed for amendment of the plaint by valuing the suit at Rs. 54,445/- viz., refund for Rs. 24,445/- and damage Rs. 30000/-, leave to pay additional Court-fees of Rs. 2017.50 and other consequential orders. In para 7 of the petition the plaintiff alleged that the tentative valuation of Rs. 1050/- was put at the suggestion of the plaintiffs lawyer. This allegation is not denied in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the defendant. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that there was an obvious mistake or blunder by the lawyer in valuing the suit. The refund claimed was Rs. 24,447/- and there was a prayer for inquiry into damages and decree for the amount found due. The plaintiff ought to have valued the suit on the basis of these two claims. The learned draftsman completely overlooked these two items of claims and valued the suit at Rs. 1050/- without any basis whatsoever. This is a clear blunder committed by the learned draftsman. Hence the plaintiff should not be penalised for the mistake on the part of the lawyer. This is a fit case where the mistakes should be allowed to be corrected for the ends of justice. The defendants counsel submitted that on the face of the plaint, this court has no inherent jurisdiction. The claims is for Rs. 22,447 below the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court and as such this suit could not be entertained by this Court. If the Court has no initial or inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit as instituted the Court will not have any jurisdiction to pass an order for amendment to bring the suit within jurisdiction. The counsel for both the parties supported their respective views with reported cases.

2. The petitioners counsel relied on AIR 1969 SC 1267 (Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Sup. Gurgaon). The facts of this case are that originally the suit was brought by an unregistered firm and thereafter an application was made by one M, for correcting the cause title by inserting his name in place of the firm on the allegation that he was a manager of the joint family business and the suit was intended to be filed in that capacity. The amendment was allowed but on appeal the High Court held that the suit was a nullity and as such no amendment should have been allowed. Dealing with that observation of the High Court, the Supreme Court held at p. 1269 as follows :-

"Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of soma mistake, neglige