JUDGMENT :

1. Though the matter was listed in ‘Orders on Interim Application’, but on the joint request of both the counsels for the parties, the matter is heard finally today itself.

2. The present writ petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, claiming following reliefs:

“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may by an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of certiotari be pleased to:-

i) Quash and Set aside the impugned order dated 02.12.2019 (Annexure-5), passed by the Court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Nimbahera in C.O.S No. 36/2012; and

ii) Dismiss the application filed by the non-petitioner/Defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C, with costs throughout; and

iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.”

3. The factual matrix of the case in brief is that that an agreement to sale was executed between the Petitioner-Plaintiff and Respondent-Defendant on 19.06.2008 for a consideration of Rs. 3,14,101/-wherein the Petitioner-Plaintiff agreed to sell his house for a sum of Rs 3,14,101/-out of which Rs. 1,05,000/-was paid as advance and the possession was handed over to the Respondent-Defendant and the remainder of the amount was agreed to be paid by the Respondent-Defendant to the Petitioner-Plaintiff in November, 2008, however, the Respondent-Defendant advanced a sum of Rs. 60,000/-on different dates and the remaining amount was not paid and therefore, the Petitioner-Plaintiff instituted Suit dated 02.04.2012 (Annexure-1) for Eviction and Mesne Profits for non-performance of the part of the agreement by the Respondent-Defendant and the agreement being rescinded.

4. The Respondent-Defendant was served notices of the suit on 07.04.2012 and the Respondent-Defendant filed his written statement on 14.08.2012 (Annexure-2).

5. The Respondent-Defendant filed an application dated 28.02.2015 (Annexure-3) under Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) seeking to make amendment in the written statement to the extent of raising counter-claim for Specific Performance of the agreement.

6. The Trial Court vide order dated 03.12.2019 (Annexure-5) allowed the application of the Respondent-Defendant.

7. Hence, being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 03.12.2019, the Petitioner-Plaintiff has preferred the instant Writ Petition.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that:

(A) the Learned Trial Court committed grave illegality and material irregularity while allowing the application of the Respondent-Defendant, in as much as the Non-Petitioner by way of amendment has sought to claim Specific Performance of agreement and the valuation of the counter claim has been pegged at Rs.3,14,101/-. As per the provisions under Section 15 of CPC:

"Every suit shall be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try the suit".

and the Rajasthan Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2014’) was enacted whereby amendment in Rajasthan Civil Court Ordinance, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ordinance of 1950’) was brought and according to the provisions of amendment to Section 19 of the Ordinance of 1950, the pecuniary Jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge was determined as to shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any suit or original proceedings of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed five lakh rupees and the suit instituted by the petitioner is pending before the Court of Additional District Judge No. 1. Nimbahera (as per the proviso of the amendment) and the counter-claim presented by the respondent has been valued as Rs. 3,14,101/-which as per the amendment, is triable by the court of the lowest pecuniary jurisdiction, which, in the presen