JANKI CORPORATION LTD Vs. V. GIRIYAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant No.1 in O.S. No. 729/2013 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge, Ballari, has filed this revision petition under Sec. 115 of Civil Procedure Code assailing the order dtd. 2/4/2018 rejecting its application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts that led to preferring this revision petition are as follows: The first respondent is the plaintiff in the suit, he has sought a direction to the defendants to pay to him Rs.2,60,000.00 annually towards damages. He pleaded that the first defendant, i.e., the petitioner herein, has an industry adjacent to his agricultural lands in Sy. No. 101b/2 and 102/d of Sidiginamola village, Rupanagudi hobli, Ballari Taluk and District. There is a natural stream, namely, Todeluvanka which passes near his land and then merge with the river Vedavati. The first defendants industry has become hazardous to the lives of the people in the locality and is a threat to the surrounding environment. The industry has no facility for storing the raw materials such as iron ore fines, ESP dust, dolachar, skip coke, manganese ore, etc. and they are dumped materials in heaps in the industrial premises in an unscientific manner. The fast blowing wind carries the dust particles of the raw materials which later on deposit over the agricultural lands and thereby the plaintiff has not been able to carry out the agricultural operations. His lands are very fertile and suitable for cultivating different varieties of crops, namely channa, corrionder, cotton, jawar, bajra, toor dal, greengram and sunflower, etc. But consequent to the industrial activities, the plaintiff has not been able to cultivate his land and has suffered loss to a great extent. In these circumstances, the defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the harm caused by them. In this background he claimed damages of Rs.2,60,000.00 per year from the defendants.

(3.) The first defendant made an application under order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) (actually it should be Order VII Rule 11(b) and (d)) for rejecting the plaint on two scores, firstly that the suit is not properly valued and the Court fee paid is insufficient and secondly that according to the provisions of Environmental Protection Act, the suit is barred. As regards Court fee, the first defendants contention is that the relief that the plaintiff has claimed is in the nature of annuity and therefore the suit has to be valued 5 times the amount claimed in the plaint and thus the valuation of the suit comes to Rs.13.00 lakhs. The Court where the suit is filed therefore lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction and that the Court fee is to be paid on Rs.13.00 lakhs, according to Sec. 22(c) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (for short KCF&SV Act), whereas the plaintiff has valued suit for Rs.2,60,000.00 and paid the Court fee thereon.