Whether the amendment petition ousting jurisdiction can be considered ? - yes - 2015 A.P.(1993) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. runs as follows:-
17. "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 question in controversy between the parties."
It is necessary to notice the provisions of Order 7, Rule 10 C.P.C. at this juncture. 
The same is extracted hereunder:-
10. (1) (Subject to the provisions of the Rule 10A, the plaint shall) at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted."
A combined reading of both the provisions make it abundantly clear to one's mind that Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. makes it obligatory on the Court to consider an application for amendment in any pending suit. On a consideration of the said application, if it exceeds the jurisdiction of the said Court, it has to invoke the provisions of Rule 10 to Order 7 C.P.C. which gain makes it obligatory on the Court to return the plaint for being presented to a proper Court.

 A controversy, whether in such circumstances, the Court should return the plaint along with the application for amendment, or consider the application for amendment and then only return the plaint if it exceeds the jurisdiction of that Court in view of allowing the amendment, was set at naught by a Division Bench of this Court in C. Janardhan Rao v. C. Ratnamala, 1986 (2) APLJ 203 which overruled the decisions reported in Padmanabha Talkies v. Gowthami Pictures, 1971 (1) APLJ 375 and Kaka v. Kanhayya Lala, 1980 (1) An.W.R. 341 and by authoritatively laying down the dicta that the jurisdiction of the Court in which the plaint was originally filed, is not taken away or ousted to consider an amendment to the plaint which eventually ousts the jurisdiction of that Court.
 If on a consideration of the application for amendment, the jurisdiction of the Court is lost, the proper course is to invoke the provisions of Order 7, Rule 10 C.P.C. and return the plaint for presentation before a proper Court. For this view, the words "at any stage of the suit", occurring in Rule 10 to Order 7 C.P.C. lend ample support. 
The Court is not denuded of is jurisdiction to entertain an application for amendment in a duly constituted suit, merely because the consequences of the decision of the application in a particular way oust the jurisdiction of the Court subsequently. 
Therefore, the fact that jurisdiction of the Court would be ousted is no ground to refuse an amendment of the plaint. In view of the binding authority of the Division Bench in C. Janardhan Rao v. C. Ratnamala, 1986 (2) APLJ 203, I have no hesitation in holding that the Court would not lose jurisdiction to consider the application for amendment. If on a consideration of the application for amendment, if the Court loses its jurisdiction, the proper course is to return the plaint under Order 7, Rule 10 C.P.C.- 2015 A.P.(1993) MSKLAWREPORT

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS