Interference in revision of High Court.

This revision arises out of an interlocutory order passed in a suit filed by the respondent for redemption of an othi, dated 3rd May, 1899. He prayed for a decree directing the defendants to receive the othi amount of Rs. 300 and to deliver possession of the properties in schedule (A-2). In the alternative he prayed for delivery of possession of item 2 of A-2 schedule and partition of items 1 and 3 of (A-2) schedule into four shares and delivery of possession of three shares to him. This was because there was a claim on behalf of the 2nd defendant that he had become entitled to a fourth share in these two items. We are not concerned with the other prayers. He valued the reliefs A and B in the principal amount of the othi and for the alternative relief of partition and possession, he valued the relief under Article 17-B of the Court-Fees Act. As higher Court-fee was payable on the main relief of redemption of the entire property, that Court-fee was paid and no Court-fee was paid on the alternative relief. The 2nd defendant raised objections as regards the valuation of the suit claim and the jurisdiction of the Court. Two of the issues were therefore heard as preliminary issues, namely, issues Nos. 14 and 15. They run as follows:

“14. Whether the relief of partition has been properly valued and proper Court-fee has been paid?

15. Whether the amended claim for partition is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court.”

Meanwhile the plaintiff came out with his application I.A. No. 931 of 1949 for an amendment of the plaint, viz., in the place of prayer (b) following to be substituted:

“In the alternative directing the defendants by way of redemption to deliver possession of item a of (A-2) schedule and separate possession of such share in items 1 and 3 of (A-2) schedule as the Court may find that the plaintiff may be entitled to against the defendants.”

Consequently he wanted also an amendment in the particulars of claim and for relief (b) the following to be substituted,

“For relief (b) the alternative relief of redemption and separate possession of such share as the Court may find that the plaintiff is entitled.....Rs. 600, Court-fee under section 7, clause (ix) of the Court-Fees Act. Rs. 67-7-0.” The learned District Munsiff found in favour of the plaintiff on issue No. 14 and against the defendant on issue No. 15 and granted the amendment of the plaint sought in I.A. No. 931 of 1949. The 2nd defendant seeks to have this order revised by this Court.

A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. M.S. Vaidhyanatha Aiyar on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent that no revision petition would lie on a mere finding which allowed the suit to go on. Assuming that this would be the general practice of this Court relating to more or less the merits, it has been the well established practice of this Court to interfere with an order relating to Court-fee and jurisdiction even though the decision on these questions of the lower Court were in favour of the plaintiff. It is only when the question related entirely to Court-fee and did not involve any question of jurisdiction that this Court had held that it would not interfere at the instance of the defendant. We are not therefore impressed with the preliminary objection.

I do not think that the real quarrel of the petitioner is with the order allowing an amendment of the plaint. It is really against the findings on issues Nos. 14 and 15. The amendments which have been allowed do not change the cause of action on which the suit was originally brought. They do not introduce new pleas. Whether they clarify anything or not it is not for me to say. All that I can say is that the amendments appear to be quite innocuous. In any event I cannot say that the learned District Munsiff erred so grossly in the exercise of his discretion that I should interfere.

Then remains the main question raised in this petition by the petitioner i.e., as to the jurisdiction of the District Munsiff to entertain the sui