Direction for return of plaint given for presenting before proper forum.

S. Nainar Sundaram, J.

1. Considering the limited scope of a controversy in this revision, and as well as the fact that the revision arises out of a suit of the year 1979, the revision itself has been taken up for final disposal today.

2. The defendant in O.S. 286 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif, Mannargudi, is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent herein is the plaintiff. The plaintiff initially laid the suit for injunction in respect of a lorry. The title to and possession of the suit lorry claimed by the plaintiff was denied by defendant in his written statement. The plaintiff would complain that the defendant took possession of the suit lorry in spite of an order of temporary injunction, which was subsisting then, and he wanted amendment of the plaint seeking the reliefs of declaration of title to the suit lorry and recovery of possession in case the Court should find possession with the defendant. The plaintiff also wanted amendment of the value of the suit as a consequence of the reliefs sought to be introduced by way of amendment. The defendant objected to the amendment, but that objection has been overruled, and the Court below has allowed the amendment sought for by the plaintiff. This revision is directed against the orders of the Court below.

3. Mr. T.M. Rangarajan, learned Counsel for the defendant, would submit that by allowing the amendment the jurisdiction of the Court below stood ousted, and the Court below should not have allowed the amendment, ousting its jurisdiction. It is true that by virtue of the amendment allowed by the Court below, its jurisdiction stood ousted. The submission of the learned Counsel for the defendant that the Court should not allow amendment, which would oust its jurisdiction, cannot be countenanced if I take note of certain principles governing such amendments. Until the amendment is allowed, it is only the Court which has entertained the plaint earlier that must decide all incidental questions, arising in the Lis, including the question of allowing or disallowing the amendment of the plaint, the Court which entertained the plaint loses its jurisdiction, the proper course would be for the Court to return the plaint for presentation to the Court, which would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit as per the amended plaint. There is a suggestion that the Court must return the plaint along with the application for amendment for presentation to the proper Court, which would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit, if the application for amendment is to be allowed. This suggestion may prove to be an unworkable one; the reason being if the Court to which the plaint is directed to be presented on return declines to allow the amendment, then the plaint will have to come back to the Court, which returned it. As already noted, until the plaint is amended by virtue of which the Court which entertained it originally loses its jurisdiction, there is no question of returning the plaint for lack of jurisdiction and for presentation to the proper Court having jurisdiction. In M. Allauddin v. P.S. Lakshminarayanan , Veeraswami, J. (as he then was), analysed the relevant case law on the subject, and the learned Judge observed as follows:

The Court below is the Court properly in seisin of the plaint as it is and it is only as and when the amendment is allowed, the question would arise whether that Court could try the suit having regard to the enhanced valuation of the suit property for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. In my view, the right course to adopt in such a case is to allow the amendment, grant an opportunity to the plaintiff to pay the deficit court-fee and if there is any question about pecuniary jurisdiction arising, examine the matter and if necessary in the light of a report to be called for from a Commissioner and on a definite finding on that question, to decide whether the plaint should be retained or will have to be returned to the plaintiff as one in exces