( 1 ) THIS is a revision application filed under sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the original opponent against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division Okha Mandal at Dwarka in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 1966 below Ex. 21 dated 8th November 1967

( 2 ) THE facts leading rise to this revision petition briefly stated are as under :the present opponent who is the wife of the petitioner filed the aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous Application to allow her to file a suit in forma Pauperis. The suit claim was in respect of recovery of arrears of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 6 200 A declaration was sought that she is entitled to get maintenance from her husband at the rate of Rs. 200. 00per month from 2nd November 1966 She claimed the relief in regard to both these claims against the person and also against the movable and immovable properties of the present petitioner. She prayed that for her maintenance amounts that be awarded charge be kept over the movable and immovable properties of her husband. The petitioner had those movable and immovable properties within the jurisdiction of another Court i. e. the Court of Mandvi Kutch. Admittedly the moveable and immovable properties of the petitioner were not within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division Okha Mandal at Dwarka.

( 3 ) AS the contention was raised by the petitioner in that application that the Court had no jurisdiction in regard to that claim the present opponent gave this application Ex. 21 stating that to avoid B dispute in regard to it she withdraws the relief regarding keeping of the charge on the movable and immovable properties for the maintenance amount. She withdraws that relief. That is how she has made an averment in this application of hers. That application was opposed by the present petitioner on several grounds We are concerned in this revision petition only with two grounds.

( 4 ) ONE ground is that the Court has no power to allow any such amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code or to allow such a withdrawal of the relief under the provisions of Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Code which will be hereinafter referred to as the Code. The reason advanced is that there is no institution of the suit. The institution of the suit could be by presenting a plaint. In a case like the present case no such plaint is filed. The provisions of Order 33 Rule 8 of the Code indicate that such an application shall be deemed to be a plaint only after the opponent is given a permission to file a suit in forma pauperis. That stage having not reached there was no institution of the suit and eventually the Court could not have allowed this amendment of the plaint i. e. the amendment application or could not have permitted the present opponent to withdraw the relief in regard to the charge.

( 5 ) THE second ground urged is that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as one of the reliefs claimed is to keep a charge over the movable and immovable properties of the petitioner her husband. Admittedly the properties are situated outside the jurisdiction of the trial Court. In view of the provisions of sec. 16 of the Code when the suit relates to movable or immovable property the suit has to be filed within the limits of the Court where the movable or immovable property is situated. As the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the aforesaid ground the Court had no jurisdiction to allow such an amendment or to allow such withdrawal.

( 6 ) THESE two submissions were made by learned advocate Mr. Mankad for the petitioner. In support of his arguments he invited my attention to certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and to certain decisions.

( 7 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Vakharia appearing on behalf of the opponent contended that the suit was instituted on the day the application was filed by the opponent for allowing her to file a suit in forma pauperis