The petition arises out of an order allowing amendment of pleadings of plaintiffs, whereby plaintiff- respondents were permitted to introduce relief for restitution of Rs.20,000, the value of ornaments, subject of dispute, passed by Additional Sub Judge, Mirpur, on April 5, 1986.
2. Mst. Ghulam Sughran was married to Nazir Ahmed, brother of Bashir Ahmed and son of Mst.
Sardar Begum, plaintiff-respondents. Nazir Ahmed disappeared 9/10 years prior to the institution of the suit, whereupon Mst. Ghulam Sughran filed a suit for divorce. She secured divorce decree from the civil Court. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for the return of golden ornaments delivered to Mst. Ghulam Sughran, at the time of marriage by her husband as, according to them, it was agreed upon between the parties that the suit ornaments shall be returned to plaintiffs in consideration of the decree for divorce. The ornaments in dispute weighing 11 Tolas consisted of 4 Bangles (four Tolas), Necklace (5 Toles), ear-rings (Tolas) and a ring (half Tola). The value of the suit property was entered as Rs.20,000 in para 11 of the plaint. The suit was instituted on January 30, 1985. The claim of the plaintiffs was repudiated by Mst. Ghulam Sughran, defendant-petitioner in her written statement. It was averred in denial to the allegation in pare 11 of the plaint that the actual current value of the ornaments was Rs.25,300. In view of the current value of the ornaments, the trial Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. The written statement was submitted on July 2, 1983.
On December 1, 1985, plaintiffs moved for amendment, by seeking permission to introduce alternate relief for payment of Rs. 20, 000, the value of the ornaments in dispute. The proposed amendment was allowed by the learned Additional Sub Judge as, in his opinion, it neither changed the nature of the suit nor cause of action.
3. The rule of amendment of pleadings is described under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. It postulates that 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 necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The true object of introduction of the provisions of amendment of pleadings, is to decide all issues emanating from the real controversy between the parties. This is just and fair as no party is desired to suffer for an omission to bring forth its claim on account of disability occurring due to personal conduct of a party or under circumstances beyond its control, including an act of nature. The true test of bona fide of a proposed amendment is that the proposed amendment must be akin, consistent and ancillary to the main proposition in dispute. Moreover, it may not, in any manner, change the nature of the suit or cause of action. In present case, the property in dispute is ornaments. The claim of plaintiffs is that ornaments being property of husband of defendant, could not be retained by wife after divorce. It was averred that at the time of compromise divorce decree, it was agreed upon between the parties that the said ornaments shall be returned to plaintiffs, the legal heirs of Nazir Ahmad, previous husband of Mst.
Ghulam Sughran, plaintiffs in their pleadings sought amendment to introduce an alternate relief by seeking prayer that if the ornaments were not returned, their value to the tune of Rs.20,000 be paid to them. The proposed amendment in the shape of alternate relief or and additional relief neither changed the character of the suit nor the alleged cause of action. It is quite akin to the main claim of the plaintiffs. It is, therefore, undenied that the proposed amendment is not in conflict with the celebrated rule of amendment of pleadings.
4. Mr. Abdul Latif Dutt, the learned counsel representing Mst. Ghulam Sughran, emphasised that the proposed amendment was deceptive as by its introduction plaintiff-respondents intended to confer pecuniary jurisdiction on the trial Court, whereas according to the current market price of the ornaments in dispute, the value of these ornaments being Rs.25,300, patently in excess (to the extent of Rs.300), the trial Court was divested of its authority to try the suit. The proposition raised by Mr. Abdul Latif Dutt is of dual character. Firstly, it is said that the current price of the ornament is Rs.25.300, as such plaintiffs cannot claim relief of Rs.20,000, the price of ornaments for its being less than actual current market value. Plaintiffs in their plaint averred that in view of the current rate of gold, the market value of the ornaments was Rs.20,000. This factual aspect of the proposition being hypothetical, cannot be determined at this stage, in absence of definite evidence. This is so as the price of gold fluctuates daily under the pressure of internatio all trade. The relevant time of determination of value of the ornaments is the date of institution of the suit and passing of decree.
The defendant-petitioner was unable to satisfy that, prima facie, the value of the ornaments on the date of institution of the suit was the one suggested by her. In absence of such a satisfaction, this part of the argument is unsustainable. Nevertheless, the issue being sub judice, is likely to be decided by the trial Court.
5. The second part of the objection is that the value of ornaments is shown at reduced rate, just to confer pecuniary jurisdiction which otherwise was not available to the trial Court. In principle, it is not permissible to allow an amendment with the only object of conferring jurisdiction or depriving a jurisdiction, to try a suit. This is so as such a device is not compatible with the spirit of law envisaged under Rule 17, Order VI, C P.C. In an identical proposition in Sobhagsingh's case AIR 1943 Nag. 293, the learned Judges of Nagpur High Court declined the amendment as, in their opinion, the intention of the proposed amendment of the plaint was to deprive the trial Court of its jurisdiction. It was held that a Court should not permit a plaint to be amended simply and solely for the purpose of depriving itself of the jurisdiction which it possessed. In the present case, the object of amendment does not appear, simply or solely, to confer jurisdiction on the trial Court which otherwise it does possess. This is so, as in the original suit the value of the suit ornaments for the purpose of jurisdiction was entered in para 11 of the plaint as Rs.20,000. This part of the pleadings is not desired to be amended, rather the amendment under consideration is in the nature of alternate relief in the shape of Rs.20,000, the, value of the subject in dispute.
6. The ordinary pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court is Rs.25,000. This is undisputed. According to the defendant-petitioner, the value of the ornaments in the light of the current rate at the time of filing of the written statement, was Rs.25,300. Even if it is believed that the value was correctly appreciated on the day of filing of the written statement, it shall not affect the jurisdiction of the trial Court as the same is to be determined according to the value of the ornamentson the day of institution of the suit and passing of the final decree.
7. The order passed by the trial Court is found compatible with the spirit of law, applicable to amendment of pleadings. It does not warrant any interference. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.