Disposed

Sri Siddappa v. Vs Smt G Susheela

Karnataka HC19 Aug 2014WP/18750/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash an order of the trial court in a civil suit where the court had previously directed that the sufficiency of court fee be framed as a preliminary issue. The High Court held that the trial court was duty-bound to record a brief finding on this issue before proceeding with the trial.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by directing the trial court to record a brief finding on the sufficiency of court fee in accordance with the law before proceeding with the trial.

Sri Siddappa v Vs Smt G Susheela — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.18750-18751 of 2014 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Sri. Siddappa .V, Son of Late Veeraiah, Aged about 67 years, Residing at No.1095, 35^th ‘D’ Cross, 26^th Main, Jayanagar, 4^th ‘T’ Block, Bangalore – 560 055.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(By Shri. P. Basavaraju, Advocate) AND:

¶10

Smt. G. Susheela, Wife of Late N.P.Krishnappa, Aged about 49 years, Residing at No.273-H, 1^st A Cross, HMT Layout, Near Chowdeshwari Temple Mathikere, Bangalore – 560 054.

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

¶13

(By Shri. N. Nanjunda Swamy, Advocate for Caveator/Respondent)

¶14

¶15

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 10.4.2014 in O.S.No.5895/2007 passed by the XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore vide Annexure-A and etc;

¶16

These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

The petitioner is said to be the defendant before the

¶20

Trial Court in a suit which was ultimately decreed. However, an appeal having been filed, the present petitioner was permitted to produce additional evidence and to amend his written statement. Accordingly, the matter was remanded and it was also directed by this Court in appeal that there should be a preliminary issue framed as regards the court fee paid and the sufficiency thereof. On remand, though the petitioner had amended his written statement and the evidence was thereafter

¶21

¶22

tendered by the plaintiff and the defendant is yet to tender his evidence, the present petition is filed.

¶23

The primary contention is that the question as regards the sufficiency of court fee was directed by this Court to be treated as a preliminary issue and it ought to have been dealt with before commencement of the trial. That exercise has not been done and therefore, the present petition.

¶24

The learned counsel for the respondent would point

¶25

out that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. The

¶26

objection raised by the present petitioner before the court below as regards the sufficiency of court fee was on the ground that the suit property was a gramatana site but has been valued as agricultural land and is therefore misleading and the court fee paid was insufficient. In this regard, the petitioner himself had produced material to disclose that the guidance value adopted by the Sub-Registrar of the jurisdiction was at a particular rate in respect of a gramatana site and that very amount has been paid by the present respondent who is the plaintiff before the

¶27

¶28

Trial Court as court fee. Hence, the question of the sufficiency or otherwise of the court fee was no longer significant, which is the reason why the Trial Court has proceeded further with the trial.

¶29

However, it is to be observed when there was specific

¶30

direction by this Court to treat the sufficiency of court fee as a preliminary issue, the court below was duty bound to do so and that has not been complied with notwithstanding that the present respondent – plaintiff may have paid the court fee applicable. It is formally necessary for the court below to record that it has been satisfied as to the sufficiency of the court fee on the issue regarding court fee, which shall be treated as the preliminary issue. Even a brief finding in this regard would satisfy the requirement of the direction issued by this Court and the law, since Section 11(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 is the mandate as regards a decision on the court fee in the first instance before proceeding with the trial. Except for this formality, there is no infirmity to be found

¶31

¶32

in the circumstances of the case. The Trial Court may again satisfy itself as to the court fee paid in accordance with the guidance value fixed for the area and proceed further, in accordance with law.

¶33

It is also to be observed as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Trial Court has already arrived at a finding that the court fee paid is sufficient. However, this is not in accordance with the format. The issue ought to have been shown as a preliminary issue and a brief finding of the decision of the court below is a must and therefore, for form’s sake, the court shall comply with the same.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Sri Siddappa v. Vs Smt G Susheela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Siddappa v. Vs Smt G Susheela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Sanjeeva Reddy Vs Smt. Adivakka

The School Development & Management Vs Sri P a Krishnamurthy

Mr Nanjaiah Vs Ms Divya

Basavarajappa Vs Samrathmal

Smt Muniyamma Vs Smt Jayamma

The Beml Employees Co-Operative Vs Smt Gowramma