Amendment of pleadings cannot be refused for alleged lack of bona fides or jurisdictional impact at the threshold.

An amendment of pleadings enhancing the valuation of a claim cannot be refused at the threshold on an inquiry into the proposed claim's merits or bona fides; that issue is for trial. A possible effect on territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction is not, by itself, a valid ground to disallow amendment. The SC set aside the High Court's refusal and restored the trial court's order permitting the amendment, leaving the trial court to examine the correctness of court fee on the revised valuation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in refusing amendment of the suit only to the extent of enhancing the valuation of the claim on the ground that the enhancement was arbitrary, not bona fide, and intended to oust jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Court held that while considering an application for amendment, the court does not enter into the merits of the proposed claim or decide at that stage whether the claim is bona fide. That question can be examined only at the trial. The Court further held that the mere consequence that an amendment may take the suit out of the jurisdiction of the court is not a ground to refuse the amendment.

Conclusion: The refusal of the amendment was unjustified, and the High Court's order was set aside while the trial court's order allowing the amendment was restored in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The suit amendment enhancing valuation was permitted to stand, and the trial court was left to determine the correctness of court fee payment on the revised valuation.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment of pleadings cannot be rejected at the threshold on an inquiry into the merits or bona fides of the proposed claim, and the fact that the amendment may affect jurisdiction is not by itself a valid ground to refuse it.

---