Smt.Suriya Begum @ Smt.Suriya Parveen vs Sri. K M Khadir Ahmed on 5 October, 2012

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Smt.Suriya Begum @ Smt.Suriya Parveen vs Sri. K M Khadir Ahmed on 5 October, 2012

Bench: N.Ananda

                     -   1   -


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

    DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012

                    BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA

               C.R.P.NO.337/2012

BETWEEN:

SMT.SURIYA BEGUM @ SMT.SURIYA PARVEEN
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
W/O LATE HUSSAIN SHERIFF
NO.39, N H K ROAD, KALASIPALYAM
BANGALORE-560002
                                   ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI K R ASHOK KUMAR, ADV.)

AND:

SRI K M KHADIR AHMED
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O LATE MOHAMMED KHASIM
OCC: BUSINESS
R/A NO.5, 5TH "D" CROSS
MANJUNATHANAGAR
NEW GUDDADAHALLI
BANGALORE-560026
                                   ... RESPONDENT

     CRP FILED UNDER SEC.18 OF THE KARNATAKA
SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, 1964, AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED     19.7.2012 PASSED   ON    IA   NO.3  IN
S.C.NO.1664/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL.
JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-3, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE
IA NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W SEC.151
OF CPC.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                              -   2     -



                           ORDER

The learned trial Judge has accepted the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and permitted plaintiff to give up part of his claim to bring the case within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes. Aggrieved by the same, defendant is before this Court.

2. The learned trial Judge has held that application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC can be entertained to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, more particularly, when the application is filed before commencement of trial.

3. The learned Counsel for defendant submits that the trial Court should not have accepted the application for amendment. Even if the restricted claim is taken into consideration along with the value of suit for purpose of jurisdiction, the trial Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction.

- 3 -

4. One of the main purposes of entertaining application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The defendant has not shown that by acceptance of application, prejudice has been caused to him. The value of subject matter of suit for the purpose of jurisdiction cannot be included in the suit claim to consider aggregate of suit claim and value for the purpose of jurisdiction to decide within pecuniary jurisdiction of court.

5. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE nas.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court