In the instant writ application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the defendants-petitioners have challenged the order dated 9.7.2007 passed by Munsit, 1st, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 113/2006 whereby the application for amendment of the plaint has been allowed.

2. The plaintiffs-respondents filed the aforementioned suit for declaration that the cancellation of agreement of sale dated 16.9.2005 by legal notice dated 28.6.2005 is illegal, void, without jurisdiction and not binding on the plaintiff and further for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from negotiating sale of flat/office.

3. Plaintiffs' case is that the defendants are the owners of complex, namely, Laxami Complex in which there is multistoried building. The plaintiffs approached the defendants to purchase one flat and contract was entered into between the parties on a consideration of Rs. 6,67,000/with terms and conditions. The plaintiffs alleged to have paid• Rs. 1,33,400/- on the date of execution of agreement of sale and further Rs. 66,000/- was also paid by cheque and the defendants agreed to transfer the flat in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged to have paid 80% of the consideration amount. However, by a legal notice the defendants decided to cancel the agreement to sell.

4. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement stating inter alia that the plaintiffs neglected and defaulted in complying the terms and conditions. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of cause title of the plaint seeking a relief of specific performance of contract and for addition of a new paragraph about readiness and willingness to purchase the flat. The plaintiffs also sought to change the valuation of suit from Rs. 68,639/- to Rs. 6,67,000/-. The defendants opposed the application on the ground that by the proposed amendment the plaintiffs wanted to withdraw their admission made in the plaint. The defendants further opposed on the ground that by the proposed amendment the nature of the suit will be changed inasmuch as the suit was filed for declaration and injunction valuing the suit at Rs. 68,639/- and by the proposed amendment the plaintiffs wanted to introduce one more relief for specific performance and the suit is to be valued at Rs. 7,35,639/-. The Court below after hearing the parties allowed the amendment petition by passing the impugned order.

5. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the Court below ought not to have heard the amendment petition as the amendment sought for oust the jurisdiction of the Court. In this connection, learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Pandit Rudranath Mishir and Others vs. Pandit Sheo Shankar Missir and Others [AIR 1983 Patna 53] [: 1983 PLJR 58] and Lalji Ranchhoddas vs. Narottam Ranchhoddas [AIR 1953 Nagpur 273].

6. Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-respondents submitted that after amendment of the plaint, the Court below returned the plaint since it exceeded the pecuniary Jurisdiction of the Court and the plaint was on return filed in the Court of Sub-Judge where suit is pending for appearance of the defendants. Learned counsel in support of the impugned order relied upon the decision of Madras High Court in the case of M. Gomathi vs. S. Nataraja [AIR 1973 Mad. 247].

7. Considering the facts of this case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, the only question that falls for consideration is as to whether the Court below has committed any error of law in passing order on the amendment petition when the amendment if allowed oust the jurisdiction of the Court.

8. There are conflicting views of different High Courts on the question as to whether an amendment can be allowed by a Court so as to oust its jurisdiction