High Court
Case Details
CRP 315/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA learned counsel for the respondent.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. K. H. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Muktar, This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 04.09.2008 as passed by the Ci vil Judge, Tinsukia in Misc. (J) Case No.33 of 2008 in Title Suit No.25 of 2008 whereby the application praying for amendment of the plaint has been rejected. Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that for typing mistake the suit value has been shown as Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs) though it ought to be Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) calculating on the basis of the annual consumption charge of gas supplied by respondent. In Para-3 of the petition as filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. the plai ntiff, the petitioner herein, has asserted under: (cid:28)The suit has been valued basing on the letter dated 17.04.2003 by which the def endant took 3(three) months advance from the plaintiff. The figure was being the approximate value and therefore the plaintiff assessed the same at Rs.1,25,000. 00 at quarterly rests; and as such the same ought to be Rs.5,00,000.00 annually approximately, but due to typing mistake and also to oversight the same is typed as Rs.8,00,000.00 in place of Rs.5,00,000.00. (cid:29) He submitted that on the face of the record it would surface that neithe r of the parties would suffer any prejudice if the said amendment is allowed to be carried out. In support of his contention he relied on a decision of the apex Court in S. RM. AR. S. SP. SATHAPPA CHETTIAR vs. S. RM. AR. RM. RAMANATHAN CHET TIAR as reported in AIR 1958 SC 245 where the apex Court held that : (cid:28)It turns out that the plaint does not strictly attract the provisions of Articl e 17-B of Schedule II and that the court fee has to be paid either under Section 7(iv) (b) or under Section 7(v) of the Act. If the court comes to the conclusi on that the case falls under Section 7(iv) (b) or 7 (iv) (c) ordinarily liberty should be given to the plaintiff to amend his plaint and set out specifically th e amount at which he seeks to value his claim for the payment of court fees. It would not be reasonable or proper in such a case to hold the plaintiff be and by the valuation made by him for the purposes of jurisdiction and to infer that th e said valuation should be also taken as the valuation for the payment of court fees. In this connection we may point out that his is the view taken by the Full Bench decision of the Lahore High Court in Karan Ilahi v. Muhammad Bashir: AIR (1949) Lah 116. As we have already indicated Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Ac t postulates that the plaintiff should first value his claim for the purpose of court fee and it provides for the determination of the value for jurisdiction on the basis of such claim. In our opinion, therefore, the learned Judges of the M adras High Court were in error in holding that the valuation for jurisdiction sh owed in the plaint should be taken to be the valuation for the payment of court fees on the plaint as well as the memorandum of appeal. In view of their prior d ecision that the present case fell under Section 7(iv) (b), they should have all owed the appellant to amend his valuation for the payment of court fees not only on the memorandum of appeal but also on the plaint. (cid:29) On the other hand, Mr. K.H. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the purpose for which the amendment has been proposed is located somewhere else. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order rej ecting the prayer for temporary injunction in the Court of the District Judge. I n that memorandum of appeal, the petitioner superscribed the suit value as Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) without the amendment as proposed being carried o ut in the plaint. He further submitted that so far the contention of the typical mistake is concerned, it cannot be accepted in view of the statement made in Pa ra-12 of the plaint vis-à-vis the letter dated 16.04.2010 which clearly shows th at the 3(three) months’ consumption advance is Rs.1,37,000/- (Rupees one lakhs t hirty seven thousand). Mr. K.H. Choudhury, learned senior counsel thereafter rai sed a jurisprudential objection related to the power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and submitted that this Court should be loathe in interfering the order of this nature passed by the subordinate Courts, while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction. On consideration of the rival contentions as projected by the parties, t his Court holds that in view of the decisions in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ramchandra Ra o and Others as reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 this Court is adequately empowered to interfere with the impugned order. In Surya Dev Rai (supra) it has been held that : under Article 227 of the Constitution 28. Later, a two-judge Bench of this Court ncore Devaswom Board :(1998) ional in Baby v. Trava 8 SCC 310 , clarified that in spite of the revis jurisdiction being not available to the High Court, it still had powers of India to quash the orders pas the findings of fact had been arrived at by non- the consideration of whi opposite conclusion. This power of the High Cour the revi sed by the Tribunals if consideration of the relevant and material documents, ch could have led to an t sional jurisdiction conferred on it. under the Constitution of India is always in addition to 32. The principles deducible, well-settled as they are, hav e been well summed up and recently in State, v. Navjot Sandhu: (2003) 6 stated by a two-judges Bench of this Court SCC 641. This Court held: (i) the jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be limited or fettered by any Ac t of the state Legislature; (ii) the supervisory jurisdiction is wide and can be used to meet the ends of ju stice, also to interfere even with interlocutory order; (iii) the power must be exercised sparingly, only to move subordinate courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority to see that they obey the law. T he power is not available to be exercised to correct mere errors (whether on the facts or laws) and also cannot be exercised \as the cloak of an appeal in disgu ise\. In view of this, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer of the plain tiff for carrying out the amendment in terms of the application being Misc. (J) case No. 33 of 2008 in Title Suit No. 25 of 2008.
Decision
In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is directed to amend the plaint in terms of the said Misc . (J) case No.33 of 2008 and file the amended plaint before the Court by the nex t date. This petition thus is allowed however subject to payment of cost of Rs.1 ,000/- to the defendant. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated. Send down the LCRs forthwith.