ANITHA R. Vs. STONE CRAFT ABRASIVES AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the 3rd defendant in O.S. No. 92/2011 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura, being aggrieved by the order dated 17 -08 -2013 directing the petitioner herein to be present before the court on 17 -09 -2013, without any further notice, filed these writ petitions.

(2.) THE first respondent herein filed a suit seeking for declaration, declaring that allotment of schedule site made in favour of the 3rd defendant by the first defendant is in violation of provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act and as such null and void and the same is not binding on the plaintiff and not to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property to the 3rd defendant. During the course of trial, the defendants have raised an issue regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. The Trial Court after examining the matter in detail by its order dated 4 -6 -2013 held that the subject matter of the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court and the plaintiff was directed to file necessary application under Order VII Rule 10 -A of CPC, if any. On the basis of the said direction, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 -A of CPC. The Trial Court after considering the matter in detail directed the office to return the plaint within 7 days and also directed the petitioner to present the same before the Senior Civil Judge at Doddaballapur. The Trial Court further directed the parties to appear before the said Court on 17 -09 -2013 without any further notice and also directed the office to send back the court file in O.S. No. 2278/1990 to the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, forthwith. The third defendant being aggrieved by the order dated 17 -08 -2013 directing her to appear before the court on a particular date and permitting the plaintiff to present the papers before the Senior Civil Judge without examining the court fees payable by them has filed these writ petitions.

(3.) ON the other hand, Sri. Vinod Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued in support of the order passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court having come to the conclusion that the court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit, called upon the plaintiff to file an application under Order VII Rule 10 -A of CPC. In order to avoid further delay in the matter, since the contesting defendant is already served, the Trial Court directed the petitioner to appear before the court on a particular day. The order dated 17 -08 -2013 cannot be found fault and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.