Karnataka High Court
Smt. Paddamma And Ors vs Sri. M. Murali Mohan And Anr on 10 February, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION No.204966/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PADDAMMA
W/O LATE NARASAPPA NAYAK,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
AND HOUSEHOLD, R/O H.NO.9-3-28,
MADDIPET, PATEL ROAD, RAICHUR,
DIST. RAICHUR.
2. SRI. RAMESH NAYAK
S/O LATE NARASAPPA NAYAK
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,
R/O H.NO.9-3-28, MADDIPET,
PATEL ROAD, RAICHUR, DIST. RAICHUR.
3. SRI. LAXMAN NAYAK
S/O LATE NARASAPPA NAYAK
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
AND HOUSEHOLD, R/O H.NO.9-3-28,
MADDIPET, PATEL ROAD,
RAICHUR, DIST. RAICHUR.
4. SMT. NAGAMMA
W/O LAXMINARAYAN
S/O LATE NARASAPPA NAYAK,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
AND HOUSEHOLD, R/O H.NO.9-11-63
MADDIPET, RAICHUR.
2
5. SMT. CHANDRAVATHI W/O GANESH
D/O LATE NARASAPPA NAYAK,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
& AGRICULTURE, R/O H.NO.9-3-28,
MADDIPET, PATEL ROAD, RAICHUR,
NOW RESIDING AT H.NO.2/89,
INDUVASI VILLAGE, GATTU MANDAL,
DIST. GADWAL.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. M. MURALI MOHAN
S/O B. MAHESH GOWDA
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O H.NO.4-10-6, MANGALWAR PET,
RAICHUR, DIST. RAICHUR OR
R/O GET TOGETHER DHABA,
GADWAL ROAD, RAICHUR,
DIST: RAICHUR-584101.
2. SRI SUBASH BHANDARIGAL
S/O BABU BHANDARIGAL
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O H.NO.8-11-180/244,
VIDYA NAGAR, RAICHUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.08.2019 ON I.A.NO.III PASSED
BY THE LEARNED II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
RAICHUR IN O.S.NO.57/2018, VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
3
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Heard.
Petitioners have challenged the orders dated
05.08.2019 passed on I.A.No.3 and 22.10.2019 on issue
No.3 in O.S.No.57/2018 by II-Additional Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Raichur.
2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in
O.S.No.57/2018 which is filed seeking relief of
declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the
suit schedule property. After service of summons, the
defendants entered appearance and filed written
statement. The trial Court, after considering the
pleadings on record, formulated issues for its
consideration. Issue No.3 is relating to determination of
Court fee to be payable by the plaintiffs/petitioners
herein. It is the case of the defendants that issue No.3
has to be treated as preliminary issue and it has to be
heard. On the objections raised by the defendants, the
trial Court passed the impugned orders and thereby,
directed the plaintiffs to pay Court fee in accordance
with the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act,
1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing
for the parties, it is useful to refer to the judgment of
the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Venkatesh R.
Desai vs. Smt. Pushpa Hosmani and Others
reported in (2019)1 Kar. L.J. 259 (FB) wherein at
paragraph-35, has held as follows:
"35. ... in view of the above, we are
clearly of the view that by virtue of Section
11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits
Valuation Act, 1958 read with Order XIV,
Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
when an issue of valuation and/or Court fees
is raised in a civil suit on the objection of the
defendant, the same is not invariably
required to be tried as a preliminary issue
and before taking evidence on other issues;
but could be tried as a preliminary issue if it
relates to the jurisdiction and the Trial Court
is of the view that the suit or any part
thereof could be disposed of on its
determination. The reference stands
answered accordingly."
4. Following the law declared by this Court in
the aforementioned case, the impugned order dated
22.10.2019 on issue No.3 with regard to payment of
Court fee is required to be interfered with. Accordingly,
the order dated 22.10.2019 is set aside. In the result,
writ petition is allowed to the extent stated above.
5. Insofar as I.A.No.3 is concerned, the trial
Court with cogent reasons allowed I.A.No.3 filed by the
defendants under Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, the
trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the matter in
accordance with law. It is also made clear that since
issue No.3 has already been framed by the trial Court,
the same has to be considered at the time of
adjudicating the matter.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NB*
