Karnataka High Court
Sri. Nagaraj vs Smt. Muniyamma on 9 February, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5637
WP No. 787 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 787 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NAGARAJ
S/O. DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF KANNUR VILLAGE,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU-562 149.
2. SMT. LAXMAMMA
W/O. DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF KANNUR VILLAGE,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU-562 149.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.A.M.VIJAY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN
1. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
KUMAR R D/O. THAMMANNA,
Location:
HIGH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA .
2. SMT. GOWRAMMA
D/O. THAMMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
3. SRI. RAVI
S/O. BYRAPPA @ MUNIBYRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
4. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O. BYRAPPA @ MUNIBYRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5637
WP No. 787 of 2023
5. SRI. RAJANNA
S/O. BYRAPPA @ MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
6. SRI. MANJANNA
S/O. MUNIYAPPA @ BYRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
7. SRI. MUNIRAJA
S/O. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF DODDAGUBBI,
DODDAGUBBI POST,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 077.
8. SMT. RANI. M. ALEX
W/O. S. M. ALEX,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 35,
D COSTA SQUARE,
2ND CROSS, COX-TOWN,
BENGALURU-560 084.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KRISHNA.S.BYAS, ADVOCATE FOR R-8;
VIDE ORDER DATED:09.02.2024, NOTICE TO R-1 TO R-7 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED IN OS.NO.337/2016 DATED 17.08.2022 BY THE HONBLE IV
ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU(R) DISTRICT,
(ANNEXURE-J), ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:5637
WP No. 787 of 2023
ORDER
1. This petition by the plaintiff in O.S. No.337/2016 on the file of
IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, is
directed against the impugned order dated 17.08.2022, whereby
the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit had not been
properly valued and the Court fee paid was insufficient and
accordingly directed the petitioner - plaintiff to file fresh valuation
slip and pay additional Court fee on the plaint.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the respondent No.8 and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
petitioner instituted the aforesaid suit for redemption of mortgage
and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property
and the said suit is being contested by the respondents -
defendants, who have filed their written statement. Prior to
settlement of issues, the Trial Court took up the questions / issue of
valuation and Court fee and answered the same against the
petitioner - plaintiff by directing them to file fresh additional slip and
pay additional Court fee failing which the plaint is liable to be
NC: 2024:KHC:5637
rejected in terms of Order VII Rule 11 (b) and (c) of Code of Civil
Procedure. Aggrieved by the impugned order on valuation and
court fee, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present
petition.
4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that despite
referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench in the case of
Venkatesh R. Desai v. Smt. Pushpa Hosmani & Others reported
in AIR 2019 KAR 47, the Trial Court fell in error in deciding the said
question / issue regarding valuation and Court fee before
proceeding further in the matter which is contrary to the ratio of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench referred to supra.
5. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to
set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Trial
Court with a direction to frame issues including the issue regarding
valuation and Court fee and decide all issues including the said
issue at the time of the final disposal of the suit, particularly when
the issue regarding Court fee and valuation does not affect the
pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court, which is the Senior Civil
Judge having unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and
adjudicate upon the suit.
NC: 2024:KHC:5637
6. In the result, the following -
ORDER
i. Writ Petition is hereby allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 17.08.2022 is hereby set
aside.
iii. The Trial Court is directed to decide all issues including
issue regarding valuation and Court fee after providing
sufficient and reasonable opportunity to all parties and
dispose off the suit in accordance with law as
expeditiously as possible.
iv. All rival contentions on all issues including the issue
regarding valuation and Court fee are kept open and no
opinion is expressed on the same.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HNM
