ORDER Sapru, J.
1. This is an application in revision from an order allowing an amendment of the valuation given in the plaint. The defendant is the applicant in this revision. The suit which the plaintiffs, brought was for redemption under Section 12, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. In the plaint, as originally presented to the Court, the principal amount secured on the basis of the mortgage for the redemption of which the plaintiffs were suing, was shown as Rs. 1,000. This was subsequently brought down to Rs. 564. In his examination before the framing of the issues one of the plaintiffs stated that the amount secured was below Rs. 500. Thereafter the defendant pointed out that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the provisions of Section 10, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The plaintiffs thereupon applied for an amendment of their plaint and this was allowed by the leaned munsif. The present revision is directed against this order of the leaned munsif.
2. The question which I have had to consider is whether the order of the leaned munsif allowing an amendment of the plaint is revisable at the present stage by this Court or not. It has been argued that after it had been made clear by the plaintiffs that the principal amount secured was less than Rs. 500, the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is urged that the proper course for the Court in the circumstances which had arisen was to return the plaint for presentation to the revenue Court which alone has jurisdiction under Section 10, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, to try suits in which the principal amount secured is leas than Rs. 500.
3. A preliminary objection has, however, been raised to this revision. It is that no revision lies inasmuch as there is 'no case' decided within the meaning of that expression, according to the rulings of this Court. I have been referred by the leaned Counsel for the opposite party to the Full Bench case in Mt. Suraj Pali v. Ariya Pretinidhy Sabha U.P. 23 A.I.R. 1936 All. 686 in which it was held that No revision lies from an order passed under Order 6, Rule 117, Civil P.C. refusing to allow an amendment of a pleading.
The opinion expressed in that case was that Cases where the amendment comes under some other Order of the Code, for example, addition or substitution of parties, or the striking off a pleading, may amount to a Case decided; but an order passed purely under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, is not What has happened in this case is that an amendment has been permitted. It cannot be said that permitting an amendment means the addition or substitution of parties or the striking off of a pleading. It cannot, therefore, be said that it amounts to a case decided within the meaning of Section 115, Civil P.C. It has been repeatedly pointed out that no complete and exhaustive definition of the word case is possible; but it clearly is the case that the word "Case", is not synonymous with the word "suit". The word "case", as was observed by Sulaiman, C.J., however, cannot be given such a wide meaning as to cover every interlocutory order passed by a Court during the trial of a suit.
4. I may refer to the Full Bench case in Buddhual v. Mewaram 8 A.I.R. 1921 All. 1. What had happened in this case was that in a suit for damages for breach of contract filed in the Court of the munsif it was pleaded by the defendant that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the case. By mutual consent, however, the leaned munsif tried that plea separately from other issues in the suit and came to the conclusion that the suit was cognizable by him. This Court entertained a revision under Section 115, Civil P.C. and on a preliminary objection taken by the opposite party it was held that No revision lay, inasmuch as no 'case' had been decided by the Court below within the meaning of Section 115, Civil P.C.
It was pointed out that all that had been decided was one out of several issues in the suit, and the defendants had their remedy by way of appeal from the decree in the suit, if it should be decided against them.
5. Reliance was placed by leaned Counsel for the applicant upon a case, Tirkha v. Ghasiram 22 A.I.R. 1935 All. 842, for the proposition that where a Court comes to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the plaint, it has no jurisdiction to allow the amendment of the plaint. An examination of this case discloses that the suit in which revision from the order allowing the amendment of the plaint had been passed was made was one which had been brought in the Court of Small Causes. The question whether a revision against an order allowing the amendment of the plaint could or could not be entertained arose under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act, and it was held That the Court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the plaint and the order allowing the amendment of the plaint was passed without jurisdiction.
It may, therefore, be pointed out that this is no authority for the proposition submitted by the leaned Counsel for the applicant. This case which was a single Judge case was decided before the Full Bench cases referred to by me and as I have pointed out, it is not relevant to the point involved in the present case. It has been urged that there is nothing to show that the order of the leaned munsif is under Order 6, Rule 17. There are other sections under which the leaned munsif could act and it is contended that it is possible that the leaned munsif has acted under Section 152 or 153, Civil P.C. In my opinion, this argument has no force. Section 152 has reference to clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgments. Section 153 authorises that The Court may at any time, and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit, amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit.
The amendment which was made in the plaint in this case was not an amendment of the' character contemplated by Sections 152 and 153. The first part of Order 6, Rule 17 gives a general power to the Court to. Allow at any stage of the proceeding either party to alter or amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be justified. It is clearly under this section (rule?) that the Court allowed the amendment. That being so, the case is clearly covered by the Full Bench case reported in Mt. Suraj Pali v. Ariya pretindhy Sabha U.P 23 A.I.R. 1936 All. 686 referred to above.
6. The result is that the preliminary objection must prevail and this application is dismissed with costs.