This revision petition by the defendant Gouranga Chandra Shaha arises out of a suit instituted against him on 7-5-1966 by Koar Bahadur Singh for possession of a piece of land and for recovery of the mesne profits respect­ing that land, and is directed against the order dated 4-7-1968 by which the Munsiff, Sadar, permitted the plaintiff to relinquish a part of the claim relat­ing to mesne profits and to amend the plaint, the nature of which amendment shall be presently stated.

2. The facts of the case have to be set out, though briefly, to bring out clearly the point that arises for deter­mination. The area of the land in dis­pute was mentioned in the original plaint as 1 kara and 1 krant. with specified boundaries. Its market value was fixed at Rs. 400/-. The amount claimed as mesne profits was put at Rs. 1400/-. An­other relief claimed in the suit was the removal of a hut built on the land in dispute by the defendant Gouranga Chandra, and this relief was valued at Rs. 60/-. Therefore, all-told, the value of the suit was fixed at Rs. 1860/- for the purpose of jurisdiction as well as of court-fee. The defendant objected to the correctness of the area of the land in dispute and also its valuation as given by the plaintiff. The Court issu­ed a commission for determining the exact area of the land within the bounda­ries mentioned in the plaint. The com­missioner reported that the area of the land is 2 karas and 16 dhurs, almost double of what had been mentioned in the plaint. That report was accepted by the Court on 23-3-1968.

On 10-6-1968, the plaintiff applied for amendment of the plaint with a view to make the area of the land in dis­pute correspond with the report of the Commissioner. Two days thereafter, on 12-6-1968, the plaintiff submitted an­other application to the Court stating that since as a consequence of the report of the Commissioner the area of the land will have to be doubled with the result that the market value of the land will go up from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 800/-, he had decided to abandon claim to Rs. 736/-, representing mesne profits for the period of 18 months, so that the suit could re­main within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, which, in those days, was Rs. 2000/-. Both the applications were opposed by the defendant Gouranga Chan­dra. After hearing the parties' counsel at length, the learned Munsiff allowed both the applications by his consolidated order dated 4-7-1968. It is against that order that the instant revision petition was filed.

3. In the opinion of the Munsiff it was open to the plaintiff to relinquish any part of the claim his sweet will and if the balance of the claim did not go beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, the suit could be proceeded with in the same Court. He distinguished the authorities cited on behalf of the defendant laying down that a Court has no right to direct the amend­ment of a plaint when the subject-matter of the suit is beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction.

4. Shri P. M. Palit, appearing for the defendant petitioner, strenuously urg­ed that since as a consequence of the report of the Commissioner the value of the suit stood enhanced to Rs. 2260/-, which was clearly above the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff seized of the suit, he (the Munsiff) had no jurisdiction to allow the plaintiff to abandon a part of his claim only to keep the valuation of the suit at a level well within his jurisdiction. In support of that contention he relied heavily on the case Tirkha v. Ghasi Ram, AIR 1935 All 842, Sobhagsingh v. Ranjit-sing, AIR 1943 Nag 293 and Varry Mutyalamma v. Dasary Narayanaswamy, AIR 1949 Mad 719.

Shri M. C. Dev Roy, appearing for the plaintiff-respondent, on the other hand, urged vigorously that the authori­ties cited for the petitioner are clearly distinguishable on facts that it is always open to the plaintiff to relinquish

Click Here to Read the rest of this document