Dismissed

Mrs. Razia Begum v. Mr Noorulamin Mohammed Saheb Patel

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2022WP/932/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an order rejecting a plaint for insufficient court fees. The Court held the impugned order, which amounted to a decree, attract a statutory appeal under Section 96 CPC, rendering the writ petition non-maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Office objection upheld; writ petition dismissed as not maintainable.

Mrs. Razia Begum Vs Mr Noorulamin Mohammed… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 932 OF 2021(GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS. RAZIA BEGUM AGED 68 YEARS W/O LATE MR MOHAMMED OBEIDULLA FLAT NO.103, THE ADDRESS NO.46, VIVIANI ROAD FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE-5

¶9

MR MOHAMMED SHUAIB AGED 46 YEARS SON OF LATE MR MOHAMMED OBEIDULLA FLAT NO.404, THE ADDRESS NO.46, VIVIANI ROAD FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE-5

¶10

MR MOHAMMED SUHAIL AGED 45 YEARS SON OF LATE MR MOHAMMED OBEIDULLA FLAT NO.401, THE ADDRESS NO.46, VIVIANI ROAD FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE-5

¶11

MR MOHAMMED SHAKEEL AGED 44 YEARS SON OF LATE MR MOHAMMED OBEIDULLA

¶12

¶13

FLAT NO.303, THE ADDRESS NO.46, VIVIANI ROAD FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE-5

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI.MEHTER M AZZAM, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

MR NOORULAMIN MOHAMMED SAHEB PATEL AGED 48 YEARS SON OF MR MOHAMMED SAHEB ISMAIL PATEL FLAT NO.302, SKYLINE ELYSEE NO.24, VIVANI ROAD, RICHARDS TOWN BANGALORE-5

¶18

MRS FARHANA NOORULAMIN PATEL AGED 44 YEARS W/O MR N M SAHEB PATEL FLAT NO.302, SKYLINE ELYSEE NO.24, VIVANI ROAD, RICHARDS TOWN BANGALORE-5 3. M/S APEX HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS FLAT NO.C, WILOCRISA APARTMENTS NO.14, REST HOUSE CRESCENT ROAD BANGALORE REP. BY ITS PARTNERS A) MR AYUB KHAN B) MR SIRAJ EBRAHIM 4. MR AYUB KHAN AGED MAJOR SON OF MR M F KHAN PARTNER M/S APEX HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS FLAT NO.C, WILOCRISA APARTMENTS NO.14, REST HOUSE CRESCENT ROAD BANGALORE-1

¶19

¶20

MR SIRAJ EBRAHIM AGED MAJOR SON OF MR H H EBRAHIM PARTNER M/S APEX HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS FLAT NO.C, WILOCRISA APARTMENTS NO.14, REST HOUSE CRESCENT ROAD BANGALORE-1

¶21

MRS YASMEEN FIRDOUSE AGED 47 YEARS WIFE OF MR B H KHSIM SHARIFF RESIDING AT NO.29, 10TH CROSS LINGARAJPURAM , BANGALORE-84

¶22

MRS THASEEN FIRDOUSE AGED 43 YERAS WIFE OF MR NOORUL AMEEN RESIDING AT NO.19, 14TH B CROSS J P NAGAR, 1ST PHASE SARAKI, BANGALORE-78

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶25

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.15.12.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.26188/2020 ON THE ON THE I.A.NO.2 BY THE LEARNED XXVI ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE CCH-20 MAYO HALL UNIT BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.,

¶26

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioners are questioning the order passed by the Court below on I.A.No.2 filed under Order 7 Rule 11(b) and (c) read with Section 151 of CPC.

¶30

The learned Judge has allowed the application and consequently, plaint is rejected. The plaint is rejected in terms of Section 26(a) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. The same amounts to decree, against which statutory appeal lies. Therefore, petitioners have a remedy by way of statutory appeal under Section 96 of CPC.

¶31

Therefore, the office objection is upheld and the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Mrs. Razia Begum v. Mr Noorulamin Mohammed Saheb Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Razia Begum v. Mr Noorulamin Mohammed Saheb Patel

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

Smt. Gowramma Vs Sri. Dayananda Pai

Smt Hema @ Hemavathi Vs Shri Raghunath

Sri. Ravi Vs Smt. Shashikala

R Jayalakshmi Vs N Nagaraju

Sri N R Panditharadhya Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

Sri. M. Srinivasappa Vs Sri. T. Ramamurthy