The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dismissal of an application for amendment of the plaint on the ground of ousting jurisdiction is erroneous and not sustainable in law, emphasizing the necessity of the proposed amendment for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.

1. By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 07.07.2014 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kangra at Dharamshala in CMA No. 80/2014 in Civil Suit No. 451/13/2003 vide which, application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present petitioner/plaintiff for amendment of the suit stands dismissed. The petitioner has further prayed for direction to be issued to learned Court below to decide the application of the petitioner for possession of the premises as per the directions passed in Civil Suit No. 23 of 2003 as well as in LPA No. 9 of 2005 and order dated 27.08.2012 passed in CMPMO Nos. 470 of 2011 and 478 of 2011.

2. As per the petitioner, she filed a suit for possession of property known as (a) Whispering Winds Resorts; (b) New Whispering Hotel; and (c) Residential premises built on the land comprised in Khata No. 46/41, Khatauni No. 123, Khasra No. 391/308, measuring 0-15-36 hectares, situated in Mohal Kand, Mauja Khaniyara, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. alongwith other reliefs including a decree of Rs.10,56,437.50/- on account of rent/use and occupation charges of the suit premises. The suit was initially filed in this Court, but was subsequently transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Kangra and thereafter to the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kangra at Dharamshala.

3. During the pendency of the case before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kangra, an application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the suit, i.e. CMA No. 80 of 2014 on the grounds that the suit was initially filed in the year 2003 and at that relevant time, plaintiff had presented the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.10,56,437.50/- and as more than 11 years had passed and the arrears of use and occupation charges have arisen to Rs.35,18,624/-, as such the plaint was liable to be amended to the extent that the value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction was liable to be substituted alongwith other amendments, which are incorporated hereinbelow:

? (a) In the value of the suit for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction instead of Rs.10,56,437.50/- in line 11, Rs.35,18,624/- is liable to be substituted and in line No. 14 instead of the word Rs.14,68,104.50, Rs.39,30,291/-is liable to be substituted, and in line No. 15 instead of Rs.19,084/-, Rs.42,540/- is liable to be substituted.

(b) In para No. 4 of the plaint at page 4 line No. 13, instead of the date 30.4.2003 the date 30.6.2006 is to be substituted and an amount of Rs.5,40,000/- is liable to be substituted with Rs.22,50,000/-. Similarly instead of the amount Rs.6,45,000/-, Rs.23,55,000/- is liable to be substituted. Instead of Rs.43,845/- an amount of Rs.1,35,000/- is liable to be substituted and instead of Rs. 59,625/- and amount of Rs.1,50,750/- is liable to be substituted.

(c) In para No. 5 of the plaint instead of Rs.1,30,000/-, Rs.5,60,000/- is liable to be substituted and instead of 16.6.2003, the date 30.6.2006 is liable to be substituted and Rs.14,625/- is liable to be substituted with Rs.58,500/- and Rs.1,44,625/- is liable to be substituted with Rs.5,78,500/-

(d) In para No. 6 of the plaint at page 5, instead of the date 30.4.2003, the date 30.6.2006 is liable to be substituted and an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- is liable to be substituted with Rs.3,60,000/-. Rs. 37,187.50 is liable to be substituted with Rs.74,374/- and The word Rs.10,56,437.50 is liable to be substituted with Rs.35,18,624/-.

(e) In para No. 7 of the plaint Rs.10,56,437.50 is liable to be substituted with Rs. 35,18,624/-/.

(f) In para No. 9 of the plaint at page 6, Rs.10,56,437.50 is liable to be substituted with Rs.35,18,624/- and amount of Rs.12,689.60 is liable to be substituted with Rs.38,540/-, and Rs.14,68,104.5