Karnataka High Court
Dr. George Varghese vs M/S. R.R.Engineering Co on 18 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21061
W.P. No.44930/2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.44930/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
DR. GEORGE VARGHESE
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/AT. NO.C-86
DEFENCE COLONY
NEW DELHI-110024.
Digitally signed
by RUPA V
AND ALSO AT:
Location: High NEW NO.13, JAYAMAHAL ROAD
Court of BENGALURU-560046.
karnataka ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADV.,)
AND:
M/S. R.R. ENGINEERING CO.
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING
ITS OFFICE AT:UNIT B-3, AUTONAGAR
VISHAKAPATNAM-530012.
AND ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT:
NO.20, SANKEY ROAD
UNIWORTH PLAZA
BENGALURU-560020.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MASUR RAVINDRA KRISHNA RAO &
SRI. R.B. PATIL, ADV.,)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF
O.S.NO.5020/2018 PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED LXVI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE.
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DTD:4.9.2019 [ANNEXURE-A] PASED IN CONSIDERATION OF
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21061
W.P. No.44930/2019
HC-KAR
INTERIM APPLICATION [I.A.NO.3] NO.3 IN O.S.NO.5020/2018 ON
THE FILE OF THE XLVI ADDITIONAL CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BANGALORE IN AS MUCH AS THE TRIAL COURT HAS DIRECTED THE
RESPONDENT TO PAY COURT FEE ON RS.10,00,000/- [RUPEES TEN
LAKH ONLY] AND THE SEPARATE COURT FEE ON THE RELIEF OF
PERMANENT INJUCTION AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE TRIAL
COURT TO CONSIDER THE MEMO FILED BY THE PETITIONER
INDICATING THE TRUE COST OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"a) Call for records of O.S.No.5020/2018 pending
before the learned LXVI Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge at Bangalore.
b) Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the Impugned
Order dtd:4.9.2019 [Annexure-A] passed in
consideration of Interim Application No.3
[I.A.No.3] in O.S.No.5020/2018 on the file of the
XLVI Additional Civil and Sessions Judge at
Bangalore in as much as the Trial Court has
directed the Respondent to pay court fee on
Rs.10,00,000/- [Rupees Ten Lakh Only] and the
separate court fee on the relief of permanent
injunction and consequently direct the Trial Court
to consider the memo filed by the Petitioner
indicating the true cost of the Schedule Property.
c) Award costs of these proceedings and grant such
other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the
above circumstances of the case, in the interests of
justice and equity."
2. Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the respondent-plaintiff has filed the
NC: 2025:KHC:21061
HC-KAR
suit in O.S.No.5020/2018 against the petitioner seeking prayer
to direct the petitioner not to sell the suit schedule property to
any third party and to execute the Joint Development
Agreement (JDA) in respect of suit schedule property and
further to handover the suit schedule property to the
respondent for development as per the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) dated 20.04.2018. It is further submitted
that the petitioner valued the suit under Section 40(e) and
Section 47(ii) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation
Act, 1958, (for short, 'the Act') and paid the Court fee of
Rs.200/-. It is also submitted that the petitioner-defendant has
filed an application in IA No.3 under Section 11(2) of the Act
seeking a direction to the respondent to remit the deficit Court
fee as per Section 40(e) of the Act on the entire suit schedule
property. The trial Court, though allowed the application,
committed error in directing the respondent-plaintiff to pay the
Court fee on the value of the MOU, which is Rs.10,00,000/-. It
is also submitted that the case being one for specific
performance of the contract, the suit is required to be valued
based on the market value of the entire suit schedule property
as the respondent-plaintiff is claiming the relief on the entire
NC: 2025:KHC:21061
HC-KAR
suit schedule property. In support of his contention, he placed
reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Bharat Bhushan Gupta vs. Pratap Narain Verma
and another1. Hence, he seeks to modify the impugned order
by directing the respondent to pay the Court fee on the market
value of the entire suit schedule property by allowing the
petition.
3. Though the matter is adjourned on many occasions,
the respondent has not appeared.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and perused the material available
on record.
5. The pleading and material on record indicate that
the respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance
of the MOU dated 20.04.2018 by seeking the relief of direction
to the petitioner not to sell the suit schedule property to any
third party, further to execute JDA in respect of the suit
schedule property and also prayer to handover the suit
schedule property to the respondent-plaintiff as per the JDU
(2022) 8 SCC 333
NC: 2025:KHC:21061
HC-KAR
dated 20.04.2018. The suit schedule property in the plaint is as
under:
SCHEDULE PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of immovable property
bearing New No.13, PID No.92-15-13, situated in
Jayamahal Road, Bengaluru, BBMP Ward No.92-
JAYAMAHAL, together with all buildings and structures
standing thereon, measuring East to West : 70 feet
and North to South : 120 Feet, totally measuring 8400
Square Feet, and bounded as follows:
East by : Private Property;
West by : Jayamahal Road;
North by : Private Property;
South by : Private Property;
6. The relief claimed in the suit is for the property
measuring 8400 square feet referred in the schedule. It would
be useful to refer to paragraph No.24 in the case of Bharat
Bhushan Gupta referred supra, which reads as under:
"24. It remains trite that it is the nature of relief claimed
in the plaint which is decisive of the question of suit
valuation. As a necessary corollary, the market value
does not become decisive of suit valuation merely
because an immovable property is the subject-matter of
litigation. The market value of the immovable property
involved in the litigation might have its relevance
depending on the nature of relief claimed but, ultimately,
NC: 2025:KHC:21061
HC-KAR
the valuation of any particular suit has to be decided
primarily with reference to the relief/reliefs claimed."
7. In view of the aforesaid judgment, I am of the
considered view that the trial Court has committed a grave
error in directing the respondent to pay the Court fee based on
the value of MOU i.e., Rs.10,00,000/-. Section 40(e) of the Act
clearly indicates that if the promise sought to be enforced has a
market value, the computation of the Court fee should be on
such market value. Considering the enunciation of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat
Bhushan Gupta referred supra, I am of the considered view
that the Court fee is required to be paid as per the market
value of the relief sought in the plaint. Hence, I am of the
opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. Writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 04.09.2019 passed
on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.5020/2018 on the file of
NC: 2025:KHC:21061
HC-KAR
the LXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City, is hereby modified.
iii. The respondent-plaintiff is directed to make
good of the deficit Court fee as per the market
value on the entire suit schedule property
within four (04) weeks from the date of
production of certified copy of this order before
the trial Court.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
BSR
