HARISH Vs. RAMAREDDY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri S. Lakshminarayana, Additional Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the State as directed by this Court since issue of Court fee is involved in present petition.

(2.) Heard Sri B.S. Sachin, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri S. Lakshminarayana, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

(3.) Petitioner is questioning the order Annexure-A where under the petitioner has been called upon to pay Court fee at 10% of the value of the property in view of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in Saraswathi Devi Prathap v. State of Karnataka, 1990 ILR(Kar) 289 (DB). It is the contention of Sri B.S. Sachin, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner that petitioner would be required to pay ai valorem Court fee only when there is a caveat entered into by any of contesting party as provided under the Proviso II, Article 11(6)(iii) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and in the instant case, order sheet of the Trial Court indicates that no such caveat having been entered into, and as such question of payment ad valorem Court fee does not arise.