Sailesh Nath Bisi vs J. Chaudhuri and Others

Gentle, J.—In my opinion this application must be dismissed. This is a suit under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act and it is common ground that the plaint discloses no cause of action. The suit was instituted in March, 1944. By May following, all the Defendants had filed their respective written statements alleging that there was no cause of action. In December, 1944, an application was made for the appointment of a receiver which was dismissed by Sen, J., on the ground that no cause of action was disclosed. The present application was instituted three months after the application for a receiver whereby it is sought to amend the plaint by adding the allegation that on January 1st, 1939, proceedings in execution in the suit out of which this present proceeding arises, was instituted and was pending so that a cause of action is disclosed. Or. 7, r. 11 of the CPC provides that the plaint must be rejected when (a) it does not disclose a cause of action, (b) where the relief claimed is under-valued. In Midnapore Zemindary Co. v. Secretary of State for India I. L. R. 54 Cal. 352 (1946), an Appellate Bench of this Court held that when a suit was under-valued, the Court had no option but to reject the claim and no jurisdiction to allow an amendment. In my view the same principle must apply whether the suit is defective on the ground of under-valuation or whether the plaint discloses no cause of action.

In my view the relief which is now sought cannot be granted and the application must be dismissed with costs. Certified for Counsel.