cannot be objected to at all. Of course, a right of appeal is provided against rejection of a plaint as provided under Order 43 Rule 1(a) of the C.P.C.; but, still where it is noticed that after the amendment was permitted and carried out in the plaint, by which the jurisdiction of that court was ousted, the learned Munsiff had passed the impugned order, this court in exercise of visitorial jurisdiction is expected to and bound to correct that jurisdictional infirmity by passing appropriate orders. In Suri Films v. S.N.Govinda Prabhu (AIR 1989 Kerala 28) this court has held in unmistakable terms that even when the amendment application moved by a plaintiff envisages valuation beyond the pecuniary limit of the court, the court before which the suit is presented is competent to entertain and dispose of that application by which, on carrying out such amendment, its jurisdiction will be ousted. But, once after the amendment is allowed, that court has to return the amended plaint for presentation before the proper court. After carrying out the amendment, the court which allowed that amendment, by virtue of which its jurisdiction is ousted, has no authority or competency to pass any order directing payment of court fee on the amended suit claim or pass any other order other than returning the amended plaint for presentation before the proper
