(BY SRI. BAYYA REDDY N.,ADVOCATE) v. ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

(BY SRI. BAYYA REDDY N.,ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

1. A MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O APPAYYANNA

2. SMT LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS W/O A MUNIYAPPA BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HEROHALLI VILLAGE ANJANA NAGARA NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE VISHWANEEDAM POST MAGADI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560091 (BY SRI. H.R. HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20224 CRP No. 353 of 2017 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS ON I.A.NO.II DATED 12.06.2017 AND DIRECT THE LOWER COURT TO DISPOSE OFF I.A.II ON MERITS IN O.S.NO.871/2013 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, AT BENGALURU, BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CRP, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: to dispose off “ Call for the records and set aside the orders on I.A.No.II dated 12.06.2017 and direct the Lower Court O.S.No.871/2013 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bengaluru Rural District, at Bengaluru, by allowing this Revision Petition, in the interest of justice and equity.” I.A.II on merits

2. A suit in O.S.No.871/2023 had been filed seeking for the following reliefs: “Wherefore the plaintiffs humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass Judgement and Decree a. Declaring that plaintiff No.2 as the absolute owner having legal right, title and interest the suit schedule property having purchased the suit schedule property under the Sale Deed dated 25.06.2011 registered as Document No. LAG-1-02676/2011/2011-12 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Laggere, Bangalore produced as Annexure-A which is legal heirs, binding the defendant, her - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20224 CRP No. 353 of 2017 representatives, adminstrators, agents or any person claiming under her. b. Directing the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit schedule property to the Plaintiff No.2. c. To direct the defendant to pay mense profits illegal rate of Rs.20,000/- occupation of the suit schedule property from 02.02.2011 till the date of actual delivery of the vacant possession of suit schedule property. d. Consequently passing permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering into enjoyment of peaceful possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff’s. e. To grant costs, compensation, interest at the rate of 18% per annum and such other reliefs that this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances in the interest of justice and equity.”

3. In the said suit, the petitioner who was defendant therein filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC contending that the valuation has not been done properly and court fee has not been paid properly. The trial Court while considering the applications filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) of CPC vide its common order dated 12.06.2017 dismissed the application - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:20224 CRP No. 353 of 2017 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. However, in paragraph 14 of the said judgment, being of the opinion that the registry has collected the proper ad-valorem court fee on the market value of the property and dismissed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) of CPC.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a sale having occurred between the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and in terms of the said sale deed, the value of the property being shown as Rupees 19,43,000/-, the valuation was to be made on that basis and court fee was to be paid on that basis and not in terms of the valuation made by the plaintiffs in the said suit.

5. On enquiry as to whether any issue has been raised as regards the adequacy or otherwise of the court fee paid, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for a short accommodation. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:20224 CRP No. 353 of 2017

6. Today a memo enclosing the issues framed has been filed. By relying on the above, he submits that no issue has been framed in that regard. This aspect would remain unconsidered by the trial Court and as such, an application under Order 14, Rule 5 of CPC has been filed by the petitioner for recasting of the issue. If an application in that regard has been filed, it would be for the trial Court to consider the same and pass appropriate favorable orders framing an issue as regards the adequacy or otherwise of the court fee paid. The finding of the trial Court on the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is that the court fee paid is a prima facie view which would not come in the way of the court considering the issue of court fee as a preliminary issue or otherwise. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Civil Revision Petition dismissed/disposed. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:20224 CRP No. 353 of 2017 ii) The trial Court is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC favorably and necessary issues relating to the court fee paid and further treat the same as a preliminary issue and pass necessary orders thereon on the basis of the evidence thereon. In the event of the court fee paid being found to be deficit, the plaintiff could always be directed to make payment of the same and if found to be adequate, no requirement for such an order to be made. Sd/- JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 83