- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Anil Goel v. Sardari Lal
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that no right was created in favour of defendant No. 1 in respect of plot No. B-30, Ram Prashtha Colony, Maharajpur, Uttar Pradesh, and also claimed an injunction regarding the same plot. The Court initially held it lacked territorial jurisdiction over the property located in Ghaziabad and returned the plaint for presentation in the proper Court. The plaintiff appealed and subsequently withdrew the relief sought for the Ghaziabad property to overcome the jurisdictional hurdle under Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal was disposed of permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint accordingly. The plaintiff then filed an amended plaint valuing the suit for injunction at Rs. 200 and for damages at Rs. 75,000. However, the Court noted that it only had jurisdiction over suits valued above Rs. 5 lakhs, thus lacking pecuniary jurisdiction. The plaintiff applied under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint to raise the valuation for injunction to Rs. 5,05,000 to bring the suit within jurisdiction. The defendants opposed this application on the ground that the Court lacked jurisdiction and thus no amendment could confer jurisdiction.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a Court without pecuniary jurisdiction can allow an amendment of the plaint to increase the valuation and thereby assume jurisdiction over a suit.
- Whether the plaintiff's application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint for the purpose of jurisdiction is maintainable.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to increase the valuation of the suit for injunction from Rs. 200 to Rs. 5,05,000 to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.
- The amendment was proposed under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC.
Defendants' Arguments
- The Court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit as valued at Rs. 75,000, which is below the threshold of Rs. 5 lakhs.
- No application for amendment can be allowed to confer jurisdiction on a Court that does not originally have it.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Lok Kalyan Samiti v. Jagdish Prakash Saini & Ors., 1995 (33) DRJ 290 | Amendment of plaint to increase valuation for jurisdiction and court fee cannot be allowed if it defeats statutory provisions; a Court without jurisdiction cannot assume jurisdiction by amendment. | The Court followed the precedent to hold that no amendment can be allowed to bring a suit within its jurisdiction if originally it lacks jurisdiction, and dismissed the application for amendment accordingly. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the valuation of the suit as presented in the amended plaint, noting the pecuniary jurisdiction threshold of Rs. 5 lakhs for this Court. Since the suit was valued at only Rs. 75,000, the Court lacked jurisdiction. The plaintiff's attempt to amend the plaint to increase the valuation under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC was examined in light of the precedent set by Lok Kalyan Samiti v. Jagdish Prakash Saini & Ors., which held that a Court without jurisdiction cannot assume jurisdiction by permitting an amendment to raise the valuation. The Court agreed with this principle, emphasizing that allowing such an amendment would defeat statutory provisions, specifically the Delhi High Court Amendment Act, 1991. Consequently, the Court dismissed the amendment application as without merit and returned the plaint for presentation in the proper Court.
Holding and Implications
The application for amendment of the plaint is dismissed. The Court holds that it does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit as valued, and no amendment can confer jurisdiction on this Court where it does not exist originally.
The plaint is returned to the plaintiff for presentation in the appropriate Court having jurisdiction. This decision directly affects the parties by requiring the suit to be filed in a Court with proper pecuniary jurisdiction. The Court did not establish any new precedent beyond reaffirming existing principles.
S.K Mahajan, J.— The plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration and injunction. The declaration sought by the plaintiff was that by virtue of an agreement dated 30th March, 1987 no right in favour of defendant No. 1 has been created in plot No. B-30, Ram Prashtha Colony, Maharajpur, Uttar Pradesh, measuring 555.50 sq. yds. Injunction was also claimed in respect of the same plot of land in District Ghaziabad. By judgment dated 3rd May, 1995 this Court held that as the property in suit for which the declaration was claimed was beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the Court did not have the jurisdiction to decide the matter and the plaint was, accordingly, returned for presentation in proper Court. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Division Bench and on 26th May, 1995 the plaintiff after some arguments made a statement before the Court that he would delete the relief sought for in respect of the property in Ghaziabad so as to remove the hurdle created by Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the statement of learned Counsel for the plaintiff, the appeal was disposed of permitting the plaintiff to make a proper application for amendment of the plaint consistent with the statement made before the Court. Subsequent to the passing of this order, the plaintiff filed an amended plaint in this Court on 18th July, 1996. The paragraph which is relevant for deciding this application in respect of the jurisdiction was in the following terms:
“That the plaintiff has valued the present suit for the various reliefs claimed hereinafter for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction as follows:
(a) The suit has been valued for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction for the relief of permanent injunction at Rs. 200/- and a Court fee of Rs. 20/- has been paid.
(b) That the suit for the relief of claiming damages is valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 75,000/- and a Court fee of Rs. 3,076/- has been paid.
2. A perusal of the amended plaint shows that the plaintiff had valued the suit for purposes of the relief of injunction at Rs. 200/- and for the relief of damages, the suit was valued at Rs. 75,000/-. The valuation so made by the plaintiff clearly shows that this Court did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit as this Court has the jurisdiction to try suits of the jurisdictional value of more than Rs. 5 lacs. Faced with this situation, the plaintiff has made the present application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC for amendment of the plaint. By the proposed amendment, the plaintiff seeks to value the suit for purposes of injunction at Rs. 5,05,000/-. The purpose of making the application is to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Reply to this application has been filed by the defendants and a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application has been taken to the effect that this Court having no jurisdiction to try the suit, no application for amendment of the plaint can be allowed so as to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of this Court.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. In Lok Kalyan Samiti.Plaintiff; v. Jagdish Prakash Saini & Ors., 1995 (33) DRJ 290, this Court was concerned with a similar situation and it was held that the amendment of the plaint to raise the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and Court fee so as to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of the Court was likely to defeat the provisions of the Delhi High Court Amendment Act, 1991 and the application for amendment was, therefore, dismissed.
5. I am in agreement with the opinion expressed by Hon'ble the Single Judge in Lok Kalyan Samiti.Plaintiff; v. Jagdish Prakash Saini & Ors. (supra), that if a Court does not have jurisdiction to try the suit, no amendment can be allowed to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court having no jurisdiction in the matter cannot pass orders so as to assume jurisdiction and the plaint in such a case has to be returned for presentation in proper Court. In this view of the matter, the application is without any merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Suit No. 1852/87
6. The application for amendment having been dismissed and the jurisdiction value of the suit being only Rs. 75,000/-, this Court does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit. The plaint is, accordingly, returned to the plaintiff for presentation in proper Court.
I.A & Suit dismissed.
Alert