The main legal point established in the judgment is that the District Forum has the jurisdiction to allow an amendment to bring the case within its pecuniary jurisdiction, even if the original claim petition exceeded its jurisdiction.

Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President— This is a revision against order dated 7.10.1992 passed by the District Forum, Aligarh in Complaint Case No. 99 /1997.

2. Learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to grant amendment to bring the claim petition within its jurisdiction. According to learned Counsel, the claim petition as such moved was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum and the District Forum having no jurisdiction to try this case could not have granted amendment. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the opposite party-claimant, has argued that the amendment can be allowed by the District Forum to bring the claim within its jurisdiction even if on scrutiny it is found that the claim is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. A copy of the relief para of the claim petition has also been filed. A perusal of it goes to show that the claimant has claimed replacement of the Tractor free of cost or to pay cost of the Tractor along with 16% interest i.e. refund the amount of Rs. 2,91,611 /-, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as damages for pain and mental agony, and damages of Rs. 1,000/- per day from the date of the order till the implementation of the order. A perusal of this goes to show that the claim petition is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. When an objection was raised about this fact, an application for amendment was moved for deleting certain reliefs of damages worth Rs. 2,91,611/- and Rs. 25,000/- contained in paras 23(b) and 23(d) of the complaint. In the objection it was alleged that the jurisdiction cannot be changed once a case has been instituted and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not provide for amendment in the claim petition.

3. The learned Counsel for the parties have relied upon various case laws. We find that there is conflict of opinions between different State Commissions on the question of allowing the amendment.

4. In the case of Chief Engineer, MPEB v. Hanumant Singh & Others, I (1995) CPJ 225, decided by M.P. State Commission, it was held that the order allowing the amendment to bring the complaint within its jurisdiction is bad in law and could not have been allowed. It was further held that this is a case wherein ab-intio that Forum had no jurisdiction. Therefore, the power for amendment could not be exercised. Now we refer to the decision which favour an amendment being allowed. In the case of Pawan Katial & Others v. Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd., Panchkula, II (1992) CPJ 838=1992 CPC 685, it was held that the compensation claim in the petition exceeds the executing limits, then a statement by the learned Counsel that the claimant confines the total monetary benefits within Rs. 10 lacs is sufficient to repel the technical objection. The second case in this series is Ranjit Cement Products v. The Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, 1993 (1) CPR 376 decided by Kerala State Commission. In this case it was held that a Forum could allow amendment of the complaint if such amendment does not changes its basic structure. A Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, in the case of Kundan Lal v. Sri Narain Lal, reported in 1957 ALJ 738, has held that even if the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, Court had jurisdiction to allow the amendment in order to reduce the valuation suit so as to bring it within its pecuniary jurisdiction. The powers of the Court to allow amendment are very wide. It cannot be doubted that a Court has jurisdiction to pass certain order even though it has no jurisdiction to try the suit; it has powers to find that if it is beyond its jurisdiction, it has powers to order the plaint to be amended so as to enhance the valuation so as to reduce the same.

5. In another case, Cap. S.V. Daniels v. The Gregory Warden Friendly Trust, 1958 ALJ 437, a Single Judge held that an amendment can be allowed by the Court to bring the case within its jurisdiction.

6. Allahab