Karnataka High Court
Sri. Y Rajanna vs Sri. Y Narayanaswamy on 26 February, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7868
WP No. 8737 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 8737 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. Y RAJANNA
S/O. YALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
2. SMT. V.ANUSUYA,
W/O Y. RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
3. SRI. R.MAHESH,
S/O Y. RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.51, BEHIND MANGALA BAKERY,
RAMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
VARTHUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 066.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA V.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
SRI. Y NARAYANASWAMY
VANDANA S S/O YELLAPPA,
Location: High AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
Court of Karnataka
RESIDING AT. NEW NO.169,
OLD NO.120, 4TH STREET,
1ST MAIN, RAMAGONDANAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 066.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. NAGAVENI G H.,ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DTD.
27.11.2021 PASSED IN OS NO. 879/2021 BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU AS PER ANNX-B AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7868
WP No. 8737 of 2023
ORDER
This petition by the defendants in O.S.No.879/2021 on the
file of the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore
is directed against the impugned order dated 27.11.2021 passed
by the Trial Court allowing I.A.No.1 for temporary injunction filed by
the respondent-plaintiff which was confirmed by the First Appellate
Court in M.A.No.1/2022 dated 21.01.2023.
2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
respondent-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the
petitioners-defendants for declaration, mandatory injunction,
permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to suit schedule
immovable properties. In the said suit, in addition to putting forth
other defendants, petitioners-defendants also contend that the suit
was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court that the suit
of valuation being the improper and the court fee being insufficient,
the suit was liable to be dismissed. It is the grievance of the
petitioner the said aspects of the matter has not been considered
by both the Courts while passing impugned orders as such, the
petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:7868
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff
while supporting the impugned order contended that the suit has
been correctly valued and the court fee paid is sufficient and that
the suit was before the court of proper jurisdiction and the
impugned orders do not warrant interference by this Court in the
present petition.
4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that there
is a serious dispute between the parties as regards pecuniary
jurisdiction of the Trial Court (Civil Judge - Junior Division) to
entertain and adjudicate upon the suit as well as the valuation of
the court fee paid by the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, in
the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble full bench in the case of
Venkatesh R Desai v/s Smt. Pushpa Hosmani and Others, ILR
2018, Karnataka 5095, wherein it is held that issue regarding
valuation and court fee affecting the pecuniary jurisdiction by the
Trial Court would necessarily have to heard as a preliminary issue,
I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition directing
the Trial Court to frame an issue regarding maintainability,
jurisdiction as well as valuation and court fee as a preliminary issue
and decide the said issue as a preliminary issue before proceeding
NC: 2024:KHC:7868
further after giving an opportunity to both parties in accordance with
law.
5. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby disposed of.
(ii) The Trial Court is directed to frame an issue regarding
maintainability, jurisdiction, valuation and court fee and to consider
and pass appropriate orders on the said preliminary issue after
hearing both parties and to proceed thereafter in accordance with
law.
(iii) All rival contentions between the parties on
maintainability, jurisdiction, valuation and court fee are kept open
and no opinion is expressed on the same.
SD/-
JUDGE
DHA
