Court held that plaintiffs may reduce claims to fit jurisdiction and the court must accept represented plaint.

C O M M O N O R D E R

These two revisions arise against the order passed by the learned District Munsif at Thiruvottiyur on 02.07.2016 and 08.09.2016.

2. For the sake of the disposal of the revision, I need not delve deep into to the facts of the case. Suffice to state the plaintiffs' claim that they are the owners of the property, by virtue of a purchase from one J.Ebenezer (2nd defendant) on 18.08.2011. As the first defendant had lodged a complaint with the third defendant, the plaintiffs feared dispossession and hence, came forward with the suit for the following reliefs.

a) to grant permanent injunction restraining the Defendants or their men or agents, servants or anyone representing them from interfering or disturbing with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

b) to direct the 1st defendant to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiffs for the damages caused to them;

c) to direct the 3rd defendant to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiffs for the damages caused to them.

d) to pay the costs of the suit

3. The suit was taken on file as O.S No.35 of 2014.

Summons were served on the defendants. The first defendant had also filed a detailed written statement. When the matter was taken up for further hearing, the learned District Munsif at Thiruvottiyur found that the valuation of the suit is Rs.1,01,000/-. Therefore, it exceeded the jurisdiction of the District Munsif's Court. Hence, exercising the power under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he returned the plaint for representation before the jurisdictional court.

4. The plaintiffs on taking return of the plaint, made an endorsement that they are giving up a portion of the damages claimed by them from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.48,000/- and represented the plaint.

5. The learned District Munsif, on receipt of this plaint, passed the following order:

3.8.2016

1. 02.07.2016 order passed by the court this court is judicial order so representation does not arise.

2. Plaintiff states that they were amended the plaint suitably. With whose permission the plaint was amended to be clearly stated. Hence the plaint is returned.

6. The plaintiffs represented the plaint stating that as they are giving up a certain portion of the damages claimed by them in the plaint, and bringing the suit within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court and that the same may be taken on file. He relied upon several authorities including a case in Hanamanthappa and another Vs. Chandrashekarappa and others reported in 1997 9 SCC 688. On receipt of the memo and authorities, the learned District Munsif passed the following order.

8.9.2016 Return Citation submitted by the Plaintiff is not relevant to this suit. After numbering of the suit Plaintiff cannot amend the plaint without getting proper permission from the court. However, the order dated 2.7.2016 is judicial order even this court cannot modified that order.

Plaintiff should approach the appropriate court.

Hence Returned.

- sd-

8.9.2016 DM/TVT Challenging these two orders, the following revisions are before me.

7. I heard Ms.Yazhini Tholgappian appearing for Mr.R.Tholgappian, for the petitioner. The respondents though served, had not entered appearance. I have gone through the records and applied my mind to the facts of the case.

8. Ms.Yazhini Tholgappian represented that the procedure under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure had not been adhered to by the learned Judge and therefore, the first order passed by him on 02.07.2016 has to be set aside. She further pleads that the order dated 08.09.2016 also suffers from infirmity as the learned District Munsif held that he does not have jurisdiction to receive the plaint, even though the valuation has been corrected and brought within the jurisdiction of the District Mu