1. The defendant in O.S. 1102 of 1982, on the file of the fourth Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, is the petitioner in this revision. The plaintiff in that suit is the respondent herein. There is no need to canvass in detail the factual controversy between the parties. The suit has come to the stage of trial. The defendant took out an application for amending its written statement raising an issue that the court below lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. That application, on objection by the plaintiff, has been dismissed by the court below. This revision is directed against the order of the court below.

2. The main point that has been put against the defendant is that it did not raise the objection with reference to the place of suing before the settlement of issues and hence it should not be allowed to raise such objection by way of amending written statement subsequently. The court below accepted the contention of the plaintiff that S. 21 (1), C.P.C, hereinafter referred to as the Code will come in the way of the defendant raising such an objection and it will override the general power of the court to allow amendments under O 6, R. 17 of the Code. This reasoning cannot be sustained. S. 21(1) of the Code reads as follows

21. Objections to jurisdiction(i) No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional court unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.

The principle under this section, as per its express terms, applies only to the power of the appellate or revisional court, to permit an objection as to the place of suing, when such objection was not taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where the issues are settled at or before such settlement. The policy behind this section is that where a case has been tried by a court of first instance on merits and a decision has been rendered, it is not liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds. O 6, R. 17 of the Code generally deals with the power of the Court to allow amendments at any stage of the proceedings. The stage to look into and apply S. 21 of the Code will come only after a decision has been rendered by the court of first instance on merits with regard to allowing amendments to pleadings, O. 6, R. 17 of the Code does not restrict the power of the Court to any stage of the proceedings, Of course, that power has got to be exercised judicially. But certainly the limitations for that power under O. 6, R. 17 of the Code could not be and should not be gleaned from S. 21 of the Code, which has got a place of application at the appellate or revisional stage. The Court below erred in thinking that S. 21 of the Code will override O. 6, R. 17 of the Code.

3. The Court below otherwise has not found any tenable objection for allowing the amendment of the written statement raising this objection as to the place of suing. The court below rightly declined to adjudicate upon the merits of this objection. In my view, no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff if the controversy between the parties is settled by the court of first instance looking into and adjudicating upon all the contentions put forth by them. After all, it is found that the plaintiff is also advancing a case that the part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court below In this view, I am obliged to interfere in revision and accordingly the revision is allowed. I make no order as to costs.