The court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for amendment of the plaint, and the valuation of the suit after amendment will not affect its jurisdiction.

1. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O. S.113 or 1976 pending before the Munsiff's Court, Palghat. The revision is directed against the order dated 17-8-1984 allowing the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint, under 0.6 R.17, C, P. C.

2. The suit as originally framed was one for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing into the property, as the right of the defendant as a tenant arose for determination in the suit. That question was referred for the decision of the Land Tribunal concerned. The Land Tribunal answered the reference against the defendant. The plaintiff thereafter filed I. A. 1225 of 1984 on 31-7-1984 for leave to amend the plaint. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant trespassed into the property, after the suit. The plaintiff by amendment sought recovery of possession of the property. Consequent to the amendment proposed, the valuation of the suit was also sought to be amended. The suit instituted in 1976 was originally valued at Rs. 450/. The amended valuation was Rs. 14,650/. The Court below allowed the application for amendment overruling the objections of the defendant. Being aggrieved the defendant has preferred the revision.

3. The main argument advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner is that the Court below had no jurisdiction to allow the amendment. It is said that the amendment if allowed will relate back to the date of the suit and on allowing the amendment proposed by the plaintiff the Court would be deprived of its jurisdiction and in such a case the proper course for the Court was to return the plaint as well as the application for amendment for presentation before the proper Court. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners placed reliance on the decision in Ramanna v. Amireddi (A. I R.1931 Madras 67) and Lalji v. Narattam (A. I. R.1953 Nagpur 273) where the view held is that when a Court is faced with the question of allowing the amendment which taken together with the original claim exceeds its pecuniary jurisdiction, it is, in effect trying a suit beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction. This view had been dissented from by other High Courts (See Kundan Mal v. Thikana Siryari (A. I. R.1959 Rajasthan 146,) Patel Construction & Co. v. 5. R. Amulakh (A I. R.1973 Gujarat 283)). This Court has also expressed a contrary view in Sreedharan v. P. S. Job (A. I. R.1969 Kerala 75) where the identical question directly arose for decision. In that case Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. said:

"While considering whether an amendment should be allowed or not, the Court ought not to go on the merits of the case. If, after allowing the amendment the Court comes to the conclusion that the Court has no jurisdiction, the Court could return the plaint to the plaintiff to be presented in the proper Court".

Repelling the contention that when the original plaint and the application for amendment are to be returned as the effect of the amendment will be to deprive the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit, it is observed further:

"It will be possible to invoke the provisions of 0.7 R.10(1) C.P.C. only after the amendment of the plaint, the effect of which alone [will be to deprive the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. No question of applicability of 0.7 R.10(1) C.P.C. can arise before that stage. It is also not possible to apply the provisions of Order XXIII C.P.C. for this purpose. When a Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it is only that Court that is competent to deal with the application for amending the plaint in that suit. If as a result of an order allowing the amendment the pecuniary jurisdiction is ousted, it must return the plaint for presentation to the proper Court, The fact that the amendment relates back to the presentation of the plaint cannot affect the question at all. The amended plaint will be considered to have been wrongly presented in the Court not having jurisdiction to entertain the same in which case that Court w