Supreme CourtDivision Bench(1993) 10 SC CK 0106

Salil Kumar Roy vs Badu Devi Bhansali (Smt) and Others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 4 October 1993 · Citation: (1995) 1 SCC 244 Supp

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. C. Agrawal, J · Kuldip Singh, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No. 2298 Of 1993

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 188 words
1.

SPECIAL leave granted.

2.

A learned Single Judge of the High court allowed amendment to the plaint in a suit pending before the High court. On appeal, the division bench of the High court, while setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge further came to the conclusion that the High court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. We are of the view that the division bench of the High court was not justified in going into the question of jurisdiction specially when the said question was pending for consideration before the learned Single Judge. We agree with the division bench that the amendment to the plaint could not be permitted by the learned Single Judge and we uphold the order to that extent. We, however, set aside the order of the division bench wherein the Division Bench has held that the High court had no pecuniary jurisdiction. The question regarding the jurisdiction of the High court will be open to be decided by the learned Single Judge before whom the suit is pending. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No costs.