( 1 ) THE question which is involved in this revision application is what procedure a civil court should adopt with regard to an amendment of plaint which results in ousting the jurisdiction of that court though the plaint as initially presented is admittedly found to be within the pecuniary jurisdiction of that court.

( 2 ) THE petitioners of this petition are the original defendants against whom the original plaintiff one Shah Raichand Amulakh who has since died has filed a suit for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 1 0 being the amount of rent in arrears for godowns and damages for use and occupation of a piece of land known as `farja adjoining the godowns which the defendant has taken on lease from the plaintiff. The suit has been filed as a Small Cause suit in the court of Civil Judge (S. D.) at Surendranagar where it is registered as Small Cause suit no. 155/64.

( 3 ) REFERENCE to para 14 of the plaint which is initially filed shows that damages for use and occupation for the land admeasuring 35700 sq. ft. have been claimed by the plaintiff. In this paragraph the plaintiff has alleged that the damages for use and occupation for 9 months i. e. upto the month of 2nd Jyeshtha of S. Y. 2017 would he Rs. 7290/at the rate of Rs. 810/per month and for keeping the trucks for the said period the said damages would be Rs. 3600/at the rate of Rs. 600/per month but since the claim for first 8 months has been time barred the claim for damages is limited only for one month at the rate of Rs. 600. 00. To this amount the plaintiff has added the arrears of rent for the godowns amounting to Rs. 250/thus making the total claim of Rs. 850/for rent of the godowns and for use and occupation of `farja. To this amount the plaintiff added the amount of Rs. 139/by way of interest and Rs. 11/as notice charges. Thus the plaintiff has made the total claim of Rs. 1 0

( 4 ) THE suit is filed by the plaintiff on 3-7-64. Thereafter on 21-7-65 the plaintiff made an amendment application out of which the present revision application arises. This amendment application is found at ex. 26 and reference to it shows that it seeks to explain how the claim for 8 months referred above is not barred by period of limitation. It is further alleged that plaintiffs advocate Shri S. A. Shah acting under a bona fide mistake of law had advised the plaintiff that the claim for 8 months was time barred but on scrutiny of the legal position it is found that the same is not time barred The plaintiff has therefore prayed by this application to allow him to claim further amount of Rs. 5400/as damages for use and occupation of the land known as farja.

( 5 ) THIS application was resisted by the present petitioner who is the defendant. It was inter alia contended on behalf of the defendant before the trial court that if the proposed amendment was granted the suit would cease to be falling within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court and therefore the court should not grant an amendment which would oust its own jurisdiction in the matter.

( 6 ) THE learned trial Judge held that the amendment in question did not change the nature of the suit and that even if the amendment in question would result in ousting the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court the same should be granted. It is against this order that the original defendant has preferred this revision application.

( 7 ) SO far as the nature of the amendment is concerned it cannot be gain said that it does not change the character of the suit. Shri Vyas who appeared on behalf of the petitioners however contended that the amendment should not be granted in view of the fact that the claim which is sought to be put forward by virtue of this amendment is barred by period of limitation. On the point I find that the question whether the claim which the plaintiff wants to put forward by bringing the proposed amendment it is barred by limitation or not is a debatable one and can be decided by the lower cour