( 1 ). BY this application, the plaintiff seeks to amend the suit valuation for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction to Rs. 5,05,000. 00 and also prays to amend the plaint to make up the deficiency/difference in the court fees already paid and now become payable on revaluation.

( 2 ). THE suit as framed is value at Rs. 1,05,000. 00 for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction.

( 3 ). THAT the amendment Act raising the pecuninary jurisdiction of the District Court on its Original Side to Rs. 5,00,000. 00 being 4 of Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 1991 came to be passed and pursuant to the notification by the High Court on its administrative side, under the Amendment Act of 1991 suits below the valuation of Rs. 5,00,000. 00 except certain categories of matters excluded from the purview of the said notification, came to be transferred.

( 4 ). AFTER the passing of the aforesaid notification by this High Court on its administrative side, the present suit became liable to be transferred to the District Court, Delhi. At that juncture the present amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be filed by the plaintiff seeking to revise/amend the suit valuation, for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction, to Rs. 5,05,000. 00 so as to retain/attract the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court.

( 5 ). I am conscious that when the proposed amendment would prejudice the interest of the party opposing it or when the nature of the suit is altered or when the proposed amendment seeks to take away the right accrued by virtue of the pleadingsof the party seeking amendment in the pleading, then only amendment cannot be granted. I am also conscious that the rules of procedure are meant to advance justice and not to impare the same.

( 6 ). IN the instant case I am not inclined to grant the proposed amendment; firstly for the reason that under Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court would allow amendment in the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings when all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in cntroversy between the parties. In the instant case, as far as the valuation for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction is concerned, that can have nothing to do with determination of the real questions in controversy between the parties. Irrespective of the proposed amendment the real question in controversy could be decided by the District Court as well since the suit as framed is valued at Rs. 1,05,000. 00 for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. It cannot be said that only by permitting the proposed amendment and thereby revising the suit valuation for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction to Rs. 5,05,000. 00 the real question in controversy between the parties can be decided by the Court. In other words amendment or no amendment, the real question in controversy between the parties would remain as revealed from the pleadings on record and for deciding the same proposed amendment cannot be regarded necessary. The second reason as to why I am not inclined to grant the proposed amendment is that it smakes of malafides for the reason that by the proposed amendment the jurisdiction of the District Court by virtue of the Amended Act 4 of the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 1991 is sought to be taken away. In other words the proposed amendment is only to circumvent the Amended Act 4 of 1991 and with a view to have this matter on the Original Side of this High Court, the amendment is sought which is quite obvious. The grant of the proposed amendment would defeat the very purpose and object of the Amended Act 4 of 1991 and the position would be the same just it prevailed before the Amended Act 4 of 1991 and because the purpose of the Amended Act is sought to be frusterated by the proposed amendment I regard the same as wanting bonafides. It need hardly be said that the amendment sought unde