Salil Kumar Roy Vs. Badu Devi Bhansali (Smt) and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- [kuldip singh and; s.c. agrawal, jj.] -- civil procedure code, 1908 — sections. 4, 9, 107 & or. 6, r. 17 — appeal against permission to amend the plaint filed during pendency of suit before single judge of the high court — powers of the appellate court — in the said circumstances, although the division bench rightly found the amendment to be impermissible, held, it was not justified in examining the question of the trial court's pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the same was to be decided by the single judge before whom the suit was pending -- a learned single judge of the high court allowed amendment to the plaint in a suit pending before the high court. we, however, set aside the order of the division bench wherein the division bench has held that the high court had no pecuniary jurisdiction.kuldip singh and; s.c. agrawal, jj.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.