Karnataka High Court
Smt Nagaveni W/O. Ashok Tandel vs Shri Prashant S/O. Baburao Shinde on 27 October, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14314-DB
RFA No. 100475 of 2025
C/W RFA No. 100476 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100475 OF 2025 (POS)
C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100476 OF 2025
IN RFA NO.100475 OF 2025:
BETWEEN:
SMT. NAGAVENI W/O. ASHOK TANDEL,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. SAYADHRI APARTMENT,
M.G. ROAD, NEAR S.P. OFFICE,
KAJUBAG, KARWAR-581301.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. UROOJAHMED J.HAVALDAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SYED NAZEER, SRI. AHMED QUADRI, ADVOATES)
Digitally signed
by AND:
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
Location: HIGH SHRI. PRASHANT S/O. BABURAO SHINDE
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
DHARWAD
BENCH R/O. SADASHIVGAD, KARWAR-581352.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GIRISH YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH
ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.08.2025 PASSED
BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C., KARWAR, UTTAR KANNADA IN O.S.NO.28/2023 FOR
NOT CONSIDERING THE COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY THE
APPELLANT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14314-DB
RFA No. 100475 of 2025
C/W RFA No. 100476 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN RFA NO.100476 OF 2025:
BETWEEN:
SMT. NAGAVENI W/O. ASHOK TANDEL,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. SAYADHRI APARTMENT,
M.G. ROAD, NEAR S.P. OFFICE,
KAJUBAG, KARWAR-581301.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. UROOJAHMED J.HAVALDAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SYED NAZEER, SRI. AHMED QUADRI, ADVOATES)
AND:
SHRI. PRASHANT S/O. BABURAO SHINDE
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. SADASHIVGAD, KARWAR-581352.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GIRISH YADAWAD, SRI. RAHUL S.KUNTOJI, AND
SMT. DIVYA J.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATES FOR
CAVEAT RESPONDENT)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH
ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC.1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.08.2025 PASSED
BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C., KARWAR, UTTAR KANNADA IN O.S.NO.28/2023.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14314-DB
RFA No. 100475 of 2025
C/W RFA No. 100476 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) These two Regular First Appeals are filed by the defendant in the suit. Two appeals are filed because the suit of the plaintiff for possession is allowed and the counter claim filed by the defendant has been rejected. However, it is clear that the counter claim was rejected since the court fee was not paid on the counter claim made by the defendant.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has today filed a memo along with copy of the legal notice dated 22.09.2025 got issued by the appellant to the learned counsel who was appearing for the defendant in the suit. Learned counsel submits that along with the memo, the bank statement of the appellant is also furnished showing transfer of Rs.1,35,000/- in favour of the learned counsel for payment of the court fee on the counter claim made by the defendant. However, the learned counsel failed to -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14314-DB RFA No. 100475 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 100476 of 2025 HC-KAR deposit the court fee, and as a consequence, the counter claim made by the defendant has been rejected, although the application for counter claim was earlier allowed by the trial court. Learned counsel would therefore submit that the matter should be reconsidered by the trial court by permitting the defendant to pay the court fee on the counter claim. The learned counsel would also add that there was no specific direction given by the trial court to the defendant to pay the court fee on the counter claim.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that although the trial court has rightly allowed the suit while passing a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to handover the possession of the residential apartment which is the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, nevertheless, instead of getting the matter considered at the hands of this court only on the ground of non-payment of the court fee at the hands of the defendant on the counter claim, it would be in the interest -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14314-DB RFA No. 100475 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 100476 of 2025 HC-KAR of both the parties to get the matter reconsidered on the defendant paying the court fee on the counter claim.
4. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff is placed on record.
5. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and decree is required to be set aside for reconsideration of the matter on merits. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeals are allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 04.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Karwar, Uttara Kannada in O.S.No.28/2023 is hereby quashed and set aside.-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14314-DB RFA No. 100475 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 100476 of 2025 HC-KAR
iii) The matter stands remitted back to the trial court with a direction to the defendant to pay the court fee on the counter claim within 15 days from 10.11.2025.
iv) Having regard to the fact that the parties have already lead evidence, nevertheless, for additional evidence, if any, some time may be required. The trial court shall make endeavour to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within a period of six months from 10.11.2025.
v) The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 10.11.2025 without waiting for further notice.
vi) The office is directed to transmit the TCR to the trial court forthwith to enable the defendant to pay the court fee and the court shall reconsider the matter on merits.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14314-DB RFA No. 100475 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 100476 of 2025 HC-KAR
vii) Office is directed to return the court fee, in accordance with law, having regard to the decision of this court to remand the matter back to the trial court.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE MBS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14