SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1953 Supreme(Nagpur) 15

HIDAYATULLAH, R.KAUSHALENDRA RAO
LALJI RANCHHODDAS – Appellant
Versus
NAROTTAM RANCHHODDAS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A V Khare, S N Kherdekar, T B Pendharkar, Advocates

JUDGMENT

1. This case comes before the Division Bench on a reference by one of us (Hidayatullah J.).

2. The point involved is simple, but because it is a point of some importance and. one of frequent occurrence, the case was referred for decision by a Division Bench to obviate further delay through an appeal by way of Letters Patent. The Plaintiff in the case brought a suit for partition in the Court of the Additional Sub-Judge, First Class, Yeotmal. The plaint as presented initially was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court, but by a series of amendments, the claim involved exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court trying it. These amendments were allowed by the learned Additional Sub-Judge, First class, and when he found at the end that he had exceeded his own pecuniary jurisdiction, he ordered the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.

3. The question which falls for consideration is whether an amendment, in such circumstances can at all be allowed by a Court so as to oust its own jurisdiction. As pointed out in the referring order, two cases are possible where by an amendment the jurisdiction of the Court is ousted. The first case is where the







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top