Karnataka High Court
N. Govardhan vs Nagabaasi Reddy on 10 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25234
WP No. 48356 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.48356 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. N. GOVARDHAN
S/O. SRI N. RADHA CHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.817,
19TH MAIN ROAD,
BANASHANKARI II STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 070.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. ANIL KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI S. SHEKER SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by H
K HEMA 1. NAGABAASI REDDY
Location: S/O. S. CHANNA REDDY,
HIGH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
KARNATAKA RESIDING AT NO.115/A,
BTM I STAGE, OPP. MANTRI ELITE,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 076.
2. H. SRINIVASA REDDY
S/O. HANUMANTHA REDDY,
ADULT,
RESIDING AT HALANAYAKANAHALLI,
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-572 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25234
WP No. 48356 of 2018
HC-KAR
3. SMT. KAMALAMMA
W/O. LATE ABBAYYAPPA @ ABBAYYA,
ADULT,
4. THAGARAJA @ JAYARAMA
S/O. LATE ABBAYYAPPA @ ABBAYYA,
ADULT,
5. MURALI @ MURALIDHARA
S/O. LATE ABBAYYAPPA @ ABBAYYA,
ADULT,
6. RAMA
S/O. LATE ABBAYYAPPA @ ABBAYYA,
ADULT,
7. MS. SUBHA
D/O. LATE ABBAYYAPPA @ ABBAYYA,
ADULT,
R.3 TO R.7 ARE RESIDENTS OF
BILEKAHALLI VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI-570 201,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHRUTHI M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE FOR R.5;
SRI FELIX, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S. SRIKANTH,
ADVOCATE FOR R.2;
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R.4, R.6 AND R.7 ARE
HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 24.07.2023;
R.4 TO R.7 ARE LR'S OF DECEASED R.3 VIDE COURT
ORDER DATED 24.07.2023).
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
COURT BELOW TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER
SECTION 151 OF CPC TO RECALL THE ORDER VIDE
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:25234
WP No. 48356 of 2018
HC-KAR
ANNEXURE-F IN O.S.NO.16419/2006 ON THE FILE OF 28TH ACC
& SJ., BANGALORE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECORDS OF
THE PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO COURT OFFICE RECORDS, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:-
"WHEREFORE, the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to-
(a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other like
writ/writs, thereby direct the court below to consider the
application filed under section 151 of CPC to recall the
order vide Annexure-F, in O.S.No.16419/2006 on the file
of 28th ACC & SJ., Bangalore in accordance with the
records of the proceedings and also court office records.
(b) to pass an Order as to costs of the Writ
Petition with such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case."
2. Sri.S.Anil Kumar Shetty, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the suit
initially for permanent injunction, later it was amended and
sought for the relief of declaration and after amendment the
necessary Court fee was paid. However, the defendants in the
suit raised the objection with regard to payment of Court fee.
NC: 2025:KHC:25234
HC-KAR
The trial Court considered the said objection and treated the
Court fee as a preliminary issue and recorded its finding on
preliminary issue on 16.04.2018. The trial Court rejected the
contention of the defendants and held that the valuation of the
suit for the purpose of Court fee by the plaintiff is correct. In
the said order, the trial Court has directed the petitioner-
plaintiff to file fresh valuation slip showing valuation of all the
reliefs and the Court fee paid on the said reliefs in the
prescribed format as per the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice.
It is submitted that the said suit was represented by a different
counsel earlier and later, he entered appearance. It is also
submitted that the earlier counsel has filed valuation slip
indicating the Court fee paid to the relief sought in the plaint.
However, the said valuation slip was not found in the record.
Hence, they have filed an application for securing the order
sheet of the trial Court. However, the order sheet was also not
available, which has been explained in the application filed
under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
It is submitted that the trial Court without considering any of
the aspects, has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has
not corrected the valuation slip as per the order dated
NC: 2025:KHC:25234
HC-KAR
16.04.2018 and by referring to order VII Rule 11 (b) and (c) of
CPC rejected the plaint. It is contended that the non-filing of
valuation slip by the petitioner would not fall under Order VII
Rule 11 (b) and (c) of CPC. Hence, he has moved an
application under Section 151 of CPC before the trial Court to
correct its error by exercising inherent power. However, the
trial Court has not considered the said application and kept the
matter pending. Hence, the present petition is filed seeking
direction to the trial Court to consider the said application.
3. Per contra, Smt.Shruthi.M, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Sri.H.V.Harish for respondent No.5 and Sri.Felix,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.S.Srikanth for
respondent No.2 supports the order of the trial Court. It is
submitted that the trial Court has provided sufficient
opportunity to the petitioner to produce valuation slip to
establish that the petitioner has paid the correct Court fee on
the prayer sought in the plaint. In the absence of production of
the valuation slip, the trial Court has rightly rejected the plaint,
which does not call for interference. It is also submitted that
the application filed by the petitioner at Annexure-'F' seeking to
NC: 2025:KHC:25234
HC-KAR
recall the order dated 05.06.2018 is not maintainable, as the
suit is dismissed. The petitioner has to avail other recourse
available under the law. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the
petition.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for
petitioner and learned counsel for respondents. Meticulously
perused the materials available on record.
5. The petitioner - plaintiff filed O.S.No.16419/2006 initially
for permanent injunction against the respondents herein, later
the suit came to be amended seeking for the relief of
declaration. The respondents - defendants raised the issue
with regard to the payment of Court fee and the said issue was
considered as a preliminary issue by the trial Court and
recorded the finding vide judgment dated 16.04.2018. The
operative portion of the order of the trial Court on the
preliminary issue reads as under:-
ORDER
"The valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court
fee by the Plaintiff is correct.
The Plaintiff is directed to file the fresh valuation
slip showing the valuation of the all the reliefs and the
NC: 2025:KHC:25234
HC-KAR
court fees paid on the said reliefs in the prescribed
formats as per the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice."
6. The aforesaid order makes it very clear that the Court has
come to the conclusion that the petitioner-plaintiff has paid the
correct Court fee. Further, the Court has directed to file fresh
valuation slip showing the valuation of all the reliefs and the
correct fees paid on the said reliefs. It appears that the
petitioner could not comply with the second portion of the
order. The explanation offered by the petitioner for not
furnishing of valuation slip is that the earlier counsel who was
representing in the suit has retired from the case and later,
present counsel has entered appearance. In the application
seeking to recall the order dated 05.06.2018, on oath the
petitioner has made an assertion that Court fee is paid and
valuation slip is also furnished. The affidavit of the petitioner
also indicates that the order sheet for the period between
14.02.2007 to 21.03.2007 is not available in the record. The
said order sheet also reflects the production of the valuation
slip. Be that as it may, the petitioner has filed an application
under Section 151 of CPC before the trial Court contending that
the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (b) and (c)
NC: 2025:KHC:25234
HC-KAR
of CPC is incorrect and impermissible as the trial Court itself in
its order dated 16.04.2018 has come to the conclusion that the
Court fee paid is proper. Hence, the aforesaid provision would
not be attracted. In my considered view, the trial Court has
committed a grave error in not considering the application filed
by the petitioner at Annexure-'F'. The trial Court is directed to
consider the petitioner's application to recall the order dated
05.06.2018 taking note of the observation supra and the order
dated 16.04.2018. No prejudice would be caused to the other
side as the respondents have opportunity to object the said
application in accordance with law.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The trial Court is directed to consider the
application filed by the petitioner under Section 151
of CPC dated 19.07.2018 seeking to recall the order
dated 05.06.2018 on its merits and in accordance
NC: 2025:KHC:25234
HC-KAR
with law after providing sufficient opportunity to the
other side.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
VMB
