AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mishra, J.—Heard. We do not find any reason to write either a detailed judgment or to enter into any of the questions that arise as to the
valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction for, in the instant appeal what we notice is that by putting the valuation at Rs. 1,000/- both for
the purpose of the court-fee as well as jurisdiction, C.S. No. 240 of 1976 was filed on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs on the Original Side of this
Court. The valuation at the relevant time to attract the jurisdiction of the Original Side of this Court was Rs. 50,000/- and more which was later
amended and made as Rs. 1 lakh and above. The plaintiffs, however, applied for amendment and sought for substitution of the original statement
as to the valuation in these terms:
The value of the suit is Rs. 1000/- for purposes of Court-fee Rs. 1,00,100/- for purposes of jurisdiction and a Court-fee of Rs. 75/- is paid on the
valuation of Rs. 1,000/- under S. 28 of the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.
This amendment was objected to on the ground that the suit originally valued was undoubtedly fit to be filed before the City Civil Court, Madras,
and in fact that was the appropriate valuation, according to the plaintiffs, when they had originally presented the plaint in the High Court. The
amendment sought for was only for the purpose of changing the forum of the suit which should have been filed before the City Civil Court, Madras.
The trial Court, however, has accepted this contention and ordered for the return of the plaint for presentation before the Court of competent
jurisdiction.
Although the CPC is not applied to a proceeding on the Original Side of this Court for purposes for which there are specific provisions made in the
Rules framed by this Court for the proceeding on the Original Side of this Court, Rule 3 in Order I of the Original Side Rules States,
Except to the extent specifically provided for by these Rules, the provisions of the Code shall apply to all proceedings. The Rules and Forms
mentioned in Appendix III thereto and all previous Rules and Forms, and the provisions of the Code, so far as such provisions are inconsistent
with these Rules and Forms, are hereby repealed and superseded and the following Rules, Orders and Forms shall stand in lieu thereof.
Code of Civil Procedure contains provisions, Order 6 thereof, about the pleadings in general, wherein it is stated in Rule 1, ''Pleading'' shall mean
plaint or written statement"" and in Rule 2, ""pleading to state material facts and the evidence:-
(1) Every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim
or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved"" and in Rule 4 it is stated,
Particulars to be given where necessary.""- In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful
default or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars maybe necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid,
particulars (with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading.
Rule 5 in that order states,
Further and Better Statement, or Particulars:- A further and better statement of the nature of the claim or defence, or further and better
particulars of any matter stated in any pleading, may, in all cases be ordered, upon such terms, as to costs and otherwise, as may be just.
Rule 17 of Order 6 states,
Amendment of Pleadings""- The Court, may, at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner
and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in
controversy between the parties.
As to what particulars may be contained in the plaint are stated in Order 7. One of the items necessary is to state (a) the name of the Court in
which the suit is brought and (f) the facts showing that the Court has jurisdiction (sub-Rules (b) to (e) and (g) to (i) are not necessary for our
purpose). If there is any defect in giving such particulars and an amendment is asked for invoking the jurisdiction of the Court, how merely on the
basis that such was the value deliberately given and not by mistake as pleaded, the Court can refuse the amendment? It would be a different
situation if there is a plea raised that the value of the property is less than the value for which a suit can be filed on the Original Side of this Court.
But if the value of the property is not less than the value necessary for attracting the jurisdiction of this Court, a fact which is conceded before us by
the respondents, to refuse the amendment will mean denial of justice.
For the reason aforesaid we find good reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The same is accordingly set aside and the amendment
sought for is directed to be allowed in accordance with the prescribed procedure of law The appeal is allowed. No costs.