Bombay High Court
Naraindas Mathuradas Narielwala vs Mukesh And Co. on 25 October, 1988
Equivalent citations: AIR1989BOM262
JUDGMENT
1. This is a plaintiffs appeal against an order returning the plaint to the plaintiffs. Which plaint will have to be ultimately presented to the same Court.
2. The plaintiffs filed this suit in the year 1972 as against the defendants for a mandatory injunction direction the defendants to remove themselves, and things and articles belonging to them from the suit premises and for certain other consequential reliefs. At that time they had valued the suit for mandatory injunction at Rs. 300/- and for the arrears Rs. 6,659/-.
3. However, something in the year 1987, the plaintiffs were advised to amend the plaint and seek relief of possession also and naturally they had to value the premises for the purpose of the said relief and they valued the said relief at Rs. 30,390/-. The amendment was allowed and carried out.
4. When the suit reached for hearing, the defendants though that they could take up a contention that the Bombay City Civil Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The argument was somewhat ingenious. When he suit was filed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Bombay City Civil Court was to the extent of Rs. 25,000/-. And the suit was within the jurisdiction of the Court. however, after amendment of the plaint, the valuation exceeded the sum of Rs, 25,000/-, and therefore, the submission is that this amendment would oust the jurisdiction of the Court, even though, in the meanwhile the limits of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court had been raised to Rs. 50,000/-. That is because the amendment which was carried out in 1987 would relate back to the date of the filing of the suit and as on that date, the suit would be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Bombay City Civil Court. in support of this contention, certain authorities were cited before the learned Judge and Mr. Sharma wanted to cite a number of authorities, here also, all stating that any amendment which is carried out in the plaint would necessarily relate back to the date of the filing of the suit.
5. In my view, it is not necessary for me to consider all these authorities as the argument it patently unjust and unreasonable. It is also not correct to say that every amendment relates back to the date of the suit as for example, very often subsequent events are allowed to be brought on record by an amendment, and there is no question of such amendment relating back to the date of the suit. The sate of the suit is relevant only for the purpose of limitation and nothing else. Limitation, as such is no ground for rejecting an amendment, if otherwise In the interest of justice, the same can be granted. The basic concern is to do justice, and not to impede the same. When the law as amended and the jurisdiction was enlarged, it did not mean that all old undecided suits where there was a possibility of excess valuation of over Rs. 25,000/- should be first eliminated and then again represented to the same Court. the Court is bound to take note of the Change in law just as the Court takes note of change of fact, if the same becomes relevant. The fact that by the time the suit reaches hearing the court's pecuniary jurisdiction stands enlarged, would at once make the said contention a non-issue. If the learned Judge's order is accepted, it would only men that after 16 years of life of this suit, the plaint would be returned to the plaintiff now, and he would present the same again to the same Court so that it would be treated as a fresh suit so as to last for another two decades. This is nothing but total injustice to the plaintiff, and would reduce the system of justice to a farce.
I, therefore, pass the following order:
The impugned order dated August 10, 1988 is set aside.
This suit, therefore, will now proceed with the hearing and the learned Judge will keep the suit on board for final hearing during the first week of December 1988, and must see that the same is disposed of on or before March 30, 1989. Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
6. Appeal allowed.