The court clarified the jurisdiction of a court to entertain an application to amend the plaint to bring it within its pecuniary jurisdiction, even after the cessation of pecuniary jurisdiction and the passing of an administrative order for transfer of the suit.

GITA MITTAL, J.

CM No. 44370/2017(for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

FAO(OS) 308/2017

1. The appellant assails the order dated 12th October, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing IA No. 3857/2016 (under Order VI Rule 17 CPC) filed in CS(OS) No. 1416/2009 by the respondent (plaintiff) and thereby permitting amendment of the plaint with regard to the property no. C-63, Friends Colony (East), New Delhi-110025.

2. It appears that a suit inter alia for the relief of declaration; mandatory and permanent injunction was filed by the respondent (plaintiff) herein against the defendants which was registered as CS(OS) No. 1416/2009. In respect of the same property CS(OS) 3241/2011 was filed by the appellant, which was consolidated for trial with CS(OS) 1416/2009 by an order dated 25th February, 2014.

3. The record of the case shows that during the pendency of these suits, by an Act of Parliament in the year 2015, an amendment was effected to the Delhi High Court Act whereby the existing pecuniary jurisdiction of the Original Side of the Delhi High Court of Rs.25 lakhs was enhanced to Rs.2 crores.

4. In exercise of the power conferred under Section 4 of the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015, the then Chief Justice of this court issued a notification no. 27187/DHC/ORGN dated 24th November, 2015 whereby all suits and other proceedings pending on the original side of this court value whereof did not exceed Rs.2 crores stood transferred to the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts.

5. As a result of the above notification, by an order passed on 8th February, 2016, CS(OS) No. 3241/2011 was transferred to the Saket District Courts.

6. It appears that the appellant herein filed IA No. 3856/2016 in CS(OS) 1416/2009 (under Section 151 CPC) on 8th March, 2016 seeking transfer of the respondent’s suit being CS(OS) 1416/2009 also to the District Courts.

7. On 19th March, 2016, the respondent no.1 filed IA No.3857/2016 in CS(OS) 1416/2009 under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to enhance the valuation of that suit from Rs.47,95,530/- to Rs.2,00,80,530/-.

8. Concerned with the issue of jurisdiction for entertaining such application for amendment of the plaint, the learned Single Judge passed an order dated 27th April, 2016 placing the following question for determination before a Larger Bench :

“Whether a court which does not have jurisdiction to entertain the plaint/suit, can entertain an application to amend the plaint to bring the plaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.”

9. A Full Bench of this court considered the referred question. By an order dated 6th September, 2016, the reference was answered in the affirmative whereby the majority of the Bench held that even after cessation of pecuniary jurisdiction and passing of an administrative order for transfer of the suit, the court which was earlier seized of the jurisdiction can entertain and decide the application for amendment of the plaint to enhance the pecuniary value of the suit to bring it in its jurisdiction.

10. We are informed by Mr. M.C. Dhingra, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had assailed this order by way of a Special Leave Petition and that by an order dated 13th February, 2017, the Supreme Court has dismissed the challenge.

As a result, the order of the Full Bench dated 6th September, 2016 has attained finality.

11. So far as the application for amendment being IA No. 3857/2016 which has been filed by the respondent is concerned, the same was considered and allowed by the learned Single Judge by the order dated 12th October, 2017. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant (who is defendant no.2 in the suit) contending primarily that neither the applicant disclosed as to how the amendment was necessary for the purposes of determining the real issue between the parties nor does the impugned order deal with this aspect of the matter a