A court has jurisdiction to allow an amendment of the plaint even if it would result in the suit being beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.

Plaintiff in O.S.No.30 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedasandur is the revision petitioner. Suit filed by him was one for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendant from interfering with his possession and for incidental reliefs.

2. Defendant in his written statement denied the title of plaintiff. Plaintiff therefore filed a petition for withdrawing the suit and to file a properly instituted suit. When permission was sought for the same was objected. Therefore an application for amending the plaint was filed as I.A.No.714 of 1998 to incorporate the relief of declaration of title.

3. Respondent again opposed the amendment mainly on the ground that if amendment is allowed, the suit will be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of court below.

4. By the impugned order, lower court dismissed the amendment application only on the ground that if amendment is allowed the suit will be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. The said order is challenged in this revision petition.

5. Notice of motion was ordered and respondent also entered appearance.

6. After hearing counsel on both sides. I do not think that the order of lower court could be supported.

7. It is well settled that if by amendment, jurisdiction of the court is ousted, that by itself cannot be a reason for not allowing the amendment application.

8. Mulla on Code of Civil Procedure, (1996 Edn.). commenting on O.6, Rule 17, has considered different views expressed by different High Courts on this question. Learned author has stated thus:

“Amendments ousting the jurisdiction of the court: There is some conflict of Judicial opinion on the question whether an amendment can be allowed which will have the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the court. The Madras High Court has held that that could not be done and this view has been adopted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh Discussing this question in Lalji Rachchodas v. Narottam the Nagpur High Court observed that just as a court which has no initial jurisdiction cannot invest itself with jurisdiction by ordering amendment, so also it will be acting without jurisdiction in entertaining an amendment application which will oust its jurisdiction and that the proper order to make is to return the plaint and the application for amendment for presentation to the proper court. But the High Court of Rajasthan has taken a different view in Kundanmal v. Thikana Siryari and hold that where the suit as instituted is within the jurisdiction of the court, it has jurisdiction to order amendment and if the plaint as amended is beyond its jurisdiction, it should order it to be presented to the proper court, In a later decision the Madras High Court has changed its former view and has fallen in line with the High Court of Rajasthan.

If the amendment of the plaint as sought would (if granted) take the suit out of the jurisdiction of the court trying the suit, the court should not reject the application, as it is only the court competent to try the suit (as filed) that can decide the question of amendment. The court must (i) consider the application on the merits and (ii) if it is granted, return the amended plaint for presentation to the proper court.

According to the Kerala High Court, an amendment of plaint which (if granted) would oust the jurisdiction of the court, can be allowed. After such amendment, the court should return the plaint for presentation to the proper court.”

9. Our High Court has occasion to consider this question in the decision reported in Allaudin v. Lakshminarayanan Allaudin v. Lakshminarayanan Allaudin v. Lakshminarayanan (1969)1 MLJ. 239. Justice Veeraswami (as he then was) has considered various decisions of this Court where different view was taken. Distinguishing those decisions, learned Judge has held thus,

“Sri Hariharan for the respondent contends that where allowing an amendment of a plaint sought for will result in deprivation of the j