The court has the power to order consequential amendments in the plaint and the value of the suit for jurisdiction is the total amount including the damages claimed by the plaintiff.

This is a petition in revision which would not have arisen had a little more care been exercised and the procedural law on the point studied.

2. The petitioner (plaintiff) instituted the suit giving rise to this petition for possession of a house, arrears of rent upto 28-2-1954 and mesne profits thereafter for 25 mouths on the ground that the defendant was a tenant and had continued to hold over even after his tenancy was terminated by a notice duly served on him. Interest was also claimed from the date of suit.

3. The claim for possession was valued at Rs. 900/- on the basis of a years rent, that for arrears of rent for 3 months at Rs. 225/-, as the rate of monthly rent was Rs. 75/- and that for mesne profits was tentatively valued at Rs. 200/-.

4. During the pendency of the suit before the Additional Munsiff, the plaintiff applied for amendment whereby he claimed on account of mesne profits (correctly speaking they ought to be damages for use and occupation) Rs. 100/-p.m. and though, as already seen, the period for which these damages were claimed in the plaint was of 25 months in the application for permission to amend this period was shown to be 18 months, and deducting Rs. 200/- already claimed, by the amendment the plaintiff sought to increase his claim by another Rs. 1,600/-, thus raising the value of the claim for purposes of jurisdiction to Rs. 2,925/-.

The Additional Munsiff granted leave to amend, and returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court, as his jurisdiction does not go beyond Rs. 2,000/-. But the mistake committed was that consequential amendments necessary to be made as a result of the grant of this application for amendment were not embodied in the plaint, and it appears that the application for leave to amend was treated as a part of the plaint and was returned along with the plaint.

This was obviously wrong and the practice must, cease. When amendments of pleadings are allowed they should be embodied in the plaint or written I statement as the case may be. In case they cannot lie conveniently embodied in the plaint or written statement then an amended plaint or written statement embodying the additional pleadings allowed should be filed and insisted upon by the courts. Courts have Dower to visit failure to comply under Or. 6 R. 18 C. P.C.

5. The plaint with the application for leave to amend already referred to above, were then presented in the court of the Sub-Judge, along with another application seeking further amendments, whereby the claim was sought to be increased to Rs. 4,306/6/-. It appears that no order-sheet was opened, when the plaint was presented in the court of the Sub-Judge, and the endorsement on the second application for amendment inclines one to think that this presentation must have been on 30-4-57. An endorsement of this second presentation on the plaint and opening of an order-sheet were necessary and should have been done.

6. It is necessary to mention at this stage that in the application for leave to amend, and which was granted by the Additional Munsiff, the plaintiff had sought to amend the relief clause in the plaint only, and not para 6 of the plaint which runs thus :

"(6) that the value of the subject-matter of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees is laid at Rs. 1,325/-(as per schedule)".

7. Because para 6 of the plaint was not sought to be amended by the first application, the learned Sub-Judge appears to have taken the view that the jurisdiction to decide the second application for amendment would also be with the Additional Munsiff. He also appears to have been of the view that the learned Additional Munsiff fixed the valuation on the basis of the amount to be found due and decreed, and this he considered wrong. He therefore directed that the matter of the second amendment be moved before the learned Additional Munsiff and the records be sent to him for that purpose.

8. It is difficult to understand the reasoning of the learned Sub-Judge, and i