NALLAMMA N. Vs. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the impugned order dtd. 20/8/2022 passed in O.S.No.407/2008 by VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Bengaluru Rural district, Bengaluru whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 11(2) of Karnataka Court Fees & Suit Valuation Act, 1958 (for short the, 'Act') was dismissed by the Trial Court.

(2.) The material on record discloses that respondent nos.11 to 27- plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration, injunction and other releifs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. In the said suit, the petitioners are arrayed as defendant nos.11(a) - 11(c) and they are contesting the suit on various grounds including that the suit has not been properly valued and the Court fee paid is insufficient. The petitioners also filed the instant application under Sec. 11(2) of the said Act seeking adjudication / determination of the valuation of the suit and court fee payable by the plaintiffs and in default to dismiss the suit. The said application having been opposed by the plaintiffs, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the application by coming to the conclusion that issue relating to valuation and court fee had to be decided along with other issues in the suit and not on preliminary issue. In this context, a perusal of impugned order indicate that the trial Court has referred to the judgment of full bench of this court in the case of VENKATESH R DESAI V. SMT. PUSHPA HOSMANI AND OTHERS REPORTED IN ILR 2018 KAR 5095 and the Trial Court has held as under:

(3.) As can be seen from the impugned order the trial Court has not rendered any finding regarding valuation and court fee and kept the same open to be decided along with other issues at the time of final disposal of the suit. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can be same be said to cause any prejudice to the petitioner or result in miscarriage of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423. Accordingly, the petition is dispose of without interfering with the impugned order. It is however made clear that issues/question regarding valuation and court fee would have to be necessarily decided by the trial court at the time of final disposal of the suit. All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter including the rival contentions regarding valuation and court fee are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.