High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition in part, quashing an appellate court order that reversed a lower court's decision on pecuniary jurisdiction and restoring the appeal for reconsideration of evidence related to property valuation.
Writ petition allowed in part; Appellate Court order quashed; Appeal restored for reconsideration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2611/2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
SRI K M MAHESHA S/O SRI MAYIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT KANCHUGARA KOPPALU VILLAGE CHUNCHANAKATTE HOBLI K R NAGARA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT PIN CODE-571602.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND :
SRI SAMPATHRAJU K N S/O LATE NAGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT KANCHUGARA KOPALU VILLAGE CHUNCHANAKATTE HOBLI K R NAGARA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT PIN CODE-571602.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 09.08.21 MADE IN MA.NO.4/2019 ON FILE OF THE HONBLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KRISHNARAJANAGARA,MYSURU,ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION AND RESTORE THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.07.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KR.NAGAR IN OS.NO.256/2018, ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION FILE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This petition is by the respondent in M.A.14/2019
on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Krishnarajanagara, Mysuru [for short, ' the appellate Court' ]. The petitioner has impugned the appellate Court's order dated 09.08.2021, and the appellate Court by this order has allowed the respondent's appeal as against the order dated 22.07.2019 in O.S.No.256/2018 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Krishnarajanagara, Mysuru [for short 'the civil Court '].
The civil Court by this order dated 22.07.2019 has answered the preliminary Issue as regards its pecuniary
3
jurisdiction to try the respondent's suit in favour of the petitioner directing the office to return the plaint along with the documents to be presented before the competent Court on a particular date.
4
civil Court's finding essentially excluding the petitioner's evidence on the ground that while exercising jurisdiction either under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC or Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Courts are only required to look into the plaint averments and the defendants’ evidence cannot be looked into.
Counsel for the respondent, cannot dispute that the appellate Court except alluding to the different exhibits marked on behalf of the petitioner has not appreciated the evidence and has in fact, excluded the petitioner's evidence entirely because of its reading of the law. However, Sri Sharath B Gowda, relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neelavathi and
others vs. M.Natarajan and others1 , to contend that the question of court fee must always be considered in the light of the allegations made in the complaint and
1 AIR 1980 SC 691
5
the decision in this regard cannot be influenced either by the plea in the written statement or what could be the final decision in the suit.
2 2019 (1) KCCR 1 (FB)
6
consideration in a time bound manner. Hence, the following
ORDER
[1] The petition is allowed in part quashing the appellate Court's order dated 09.08.2021 restoring the appeal for reconsideration.
[2] The petitioner and the respondent shall appear without further notice before the appellate Court on 01.12.2022 and assist the appellate Court in the expeditious disposal of the appeal, and in any event on or before 31.01.2023.
Sd/JUDGE
nv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court was correct in excluding evidence while deciding on pecuniary jurisdiction.
Whether the writ petition should be allowed in part to quash the appellate court order regarding jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Neelavathi and others vs. M.Natarajan and othersReferred¶29
AIR 1980 SC 691 · Who else cites this
Venkatesh R. Desai v. Smt. Pushpa Hosmani and OthersReferred¶33
2019 (1) KCCR 1 (FB)
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri K M Mahesha
Sri Sampathraju K N
B. M. Shyam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
