Plaint amendment for valuation and jurisdictional correction should be allowed before evidence, absent prejudice or change in suit nature.

An amendment correcting plaint valuation for court fee and jurisdiction should ordinarily be permitted under Order VI Rule 17 CPC when sought before the evidence stage, especially where undervaluation is already in issue and the correction does not change the nature of the suit or prejudice the defendant. A possible shift in forum is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to refuse the amendment, and the trial court may still determine the correctness of court fee and jurisdiction on evidence. The request to substitute the authorised representative was not pressed, and the amendment was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment of the plaint to correct the valuation of the suit for court fee and jurisdiction, and to bring the authorised representative on record, ought to be allowed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The amendment relating to valuation was sought before the evidence stage, and the dispute regarding under-valuation had already arisen in the suit through the framed issue on court fee and jurisdiction. The correction did not alter the nature of the suit or cause prejudice to the defendant. The objection that the amendment would shift the forum was not a sufficient ground to refuse relief. The trial court retained the power to determine the correctness of court fee and jurisdiction on the evidence. The request concerning substitution of the authorised representative was not pressed.

Conclusion: The amendment was rightly allowed and no ground was made out to interfere with the impugned order.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment correcting valuation and related court-fee or jurisdictional averments should ordinarily be permitted before trial, unless it changes the nature of the suit or causes prejudice to the opposite party.

---