L. PREMKISHORE Vs. REVAJEETHU BUILDERS DEVELOPERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants appeal (i.e., defendants 8, 9 & 11-16) challenging the order of rejecting their applications to recall the order dated 9.11.1999 or review the said order allowing the plaintiff/1st respondent herein to pay the deficit court fee on the prayer for recovery of money and in the alternative for declaration and possession. It transpires that property measuring 5.24 acres in Sy.No.6/1 and 6/2 of Dasarahally, Uttarahally Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk was the subject matter under the Urban Land Ceiling Act (ULCA for short) which was sold in favour of the plaintiff. It appears as there was some illegality committed in granting permission contrary to the provisions of the ULCA, matter reached the Supreme Court where such a transaction was held void on the ground that such permission granted is contrary to the provisions of the ULCA. Now, as per the terms of the agreement it appears an amount of Rs.52,97,111/- was paid to the defendants and remaining amount of Rs.37,02,889/- was to be paid to the banker.

(2.) However, the said amount has not been accepted by Andhra Bank and that money remains with the plaintiff himself. Meanwhile, Apex Court declared the transaction as void. In the present suit filed for recovery of money and in the alternative for declaration and possession, it appears an amount of Rs.2 lakhs and odd is said to be paid at the time of filing the suit. However, objection is raised by the office of the trial court under S.24 A of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act as when there was also an alternative prayer for declaration and possession. In the case, the suit property is valued at Rs.90 lakhs initially however, plaintiff is shown to have valued it at Rs.52,97,111/-. Be that as it may, meantime several applications were filed by the plaintiff seeking adjournment and the matter was adjourned from time to time. When office has raised objection initially as per the submission of the petitioners' counsel, within a reasonable time plaintiff should have paid the remaining revised valuation slip. It was for the plaintiff himself to file revised valuation slip. That he did not do. Thereafter when office has raised objection that also is not complied with by filing revised valuation slip. Further, the impugned order came to be passed, after adjourning the matter several times on 4.12.2002.

(3.) In the impugned order passed, it is noted by the presiding officer that the order sheet says that 'his predecessor did not determine the sufficiency of the court fee and there was no order subsequently directing the plaintiff to file deficit court fee on such determination. The said order is sought to be recalled or reviewed'. It appears application is filed by the defendants to review the order permitting the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee. The reasoning given by the trial court is that the error committed by the court should not turn to be a punishment to the litigant at this length of time, the said order dated 9.4.1999 is recalled, then the position will be the court will have to determine the sufficiency of the court fee. Stating that the plaintiff having already paid the court fee, no useful purpose would be served by recalling the order dated 9.4.1999, the applications filed by the defendants were rejected. Hence, this revision.