Pecuniary valuation amendment on Original Side: Delhi High Court split on whether suit could remain before the court.

The commentary examines whether the Delhi High Court's Original Side could entertain an amendment application to increase the plaint valuation and keep the suit before the High Court after the 2015 amendment regime and the Chief Justice's transfer order. The majority view was that forum choice and valuation are relevant but not absolute, and that Order VI Rule 17 jurisdiction remained available while the matter stayed on the Original Side; if the amendment were allowed, the suit would not be transferred. The dissent considered that the amended pecuniary limits and transfer order removed such jurisdiction, requiring transfer back under Section 24 CPC.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Original Side of the High Court, after the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015 and the Chief Justice's transfer order, can entertain an application to amend the plaint so as to enhance the pecuniary valuation and retain the suit in the High Court.

Analysis: The majority held that the plaintiff's choice of forum and valuation, though relevant, is not an absolute right immune from scrutiny. Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regulates institution in the court of lowest grade competent to try the suit, but does not mean that a suit validly instituted in the High Court loses all procedural incidents on a change in pecuniary limits. The amendment of 2015 and the transfer order of 24 November 2015 were treated as not barring the High Court from deciding an amendment application while the matter remained on its Original Side. The majority relied on the nature of amendment jurisdiction under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the plaintiff's role as dominus litis, and the principle that procedural rules should advance justice. It was held that the High Court could consider the amendment application and, if allowed, the suit would not be transferred.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the affirmative and in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, holding that the Original Side of the High Court could entertain and decide the amendment application for enhancement of pecuniary valuation.

Dissenting Opinion: R.K. Gauba, J. held that once the amended regime and the Chief Justice's transfer order operated, the Original Side ceased to have jurisdiction over suits falling within the subordinate courts' pecuniary limits, and the High Court could not entertain the amendment application except after transfer back under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---