D.L. MEHTA, J.—Petitioner preferred this revision petition being aggrieved with the order dated 2nd August, 1984 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu Suit was instituted for the recovery of the rent, interest and ejectment etc. in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu. The valuation of civil suit was assessed as Rs. 8,727/- on account of arrears and interest. The suit was also valued for the purpose of ejectment and the valuation was fixed as Rs, 1,608/- Thus, the total valuation was Rs. 10,335/- and the court fee was also paid on the same amount. An application was moved for the amendment of the plaint and it was mentioned in that application that the petitioner wants to give away the relief relating to the rent for the period 1st March, 1975 to 31st October, 1975. Petitioner also gave away the relief of interest. Thus; the valuation of the suit was reduced by abandoning/giving up the relief relating to rent and interest referred above. An application under 0.6 R.17 C.P.C. was moved by the petitioner and the same has been rejected by the trial-court.

2. Being aggrieved with the order dated 2nd August, 1984 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu, this revision petition has been preferred before this court.

3. Mr. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the right of the party to give-up the part of the relief prayed in the suit The Court has no jurisdiction to deny the giving away or abandoning the relief or part of the relief prayed in the plaint.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Ranjan, submits that passing of order on application under 0 6 Rule 17, is the act of the court and the court has rightly rejected the application as the court has no jurisdiction to deal with the application. Mr. Ranjan, has also cited before me the case of Gangabux Vs. Ayodhyaprasad (1), in which this Court has held that where the court has no jurisdiction to the suit as originaly, valued but the plaintiff puts in an amendment relinquishing part of his claim and thus bringing it within the jurisdiction of the court it was held that such an amendment could not be allowed and the plaint must be rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court namely Mrs. Shobha Vinkai Rao Vs. K.R. Mahale, (2). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the abandonment by a part of the claim is a right of the party and it is not necessary to amend the plaint.

6. I have heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for both the parties, 0.2 R.2 sub-clause (2) deals with the frame of the suit. 0.2 R.2 sub-clause (2) provides that where a plaint ommits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes any portion of his claim he shall not afterwords sue in respect of the portion so ommited or relinquished. Rule 2 empowers the plaintiff to relinquish the part of the claim and the permission of the court is not necessary and it is also not necessary to amend the suit for the purpose of relinquishment. Once the plaintiff has relinquished the part of the claim or part of the relief then he cannot file a suit for the grant of relief which has been relinquished. Thus, 0 2 R.2 sub-clause (2) empowers the party to relinquish and part of the relief without amending the suit. Any application moved for the relinquishment or any relief prayed for in the original plaint should be treated as an application under 0.2 Rule 2 sub-clause (2) C.P.C. cannot be treated as an application under 0.6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. 0.6 R.17, empowers the court to accept the amendment prayed for or to reject the amendment prayed for. Thus, it is the act of this court by which the party applying for the amendment gets relief and the intervention of the court and the order of the court is necessary for this purpose. As far as 0.2 R.2 sub-clause (2) relating to the framing of the suit is concerned, it empowers the party himself to relinquish or to abandon or to relinquish any relief or part of the relief praye

Click Here to Read the rest of this document