Dismissed

S Muralikrishna v. Smt S Shilpa

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2023CRP/228/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of an application for rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-payment of court fee. The High Court held that since the trial court had not decided the proper court fee, the rejection application was premature and dismissed the petition without addressing the correctness of the trial court's stance.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to file an application under Section 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 to determine proper court fee.

S Muralikrishna Vs Smt S Shilpa — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:40455 CRP No. 228 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.228 OF 2023 (IO)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

S. MURALIKRISHNA S/O. LATE R.SHIVASHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.403, 17^TH CROSS, BEML LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BANGALORE-560096.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. J.M. RAJANNA SETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. S. SHILPA W/O. SRI. HARISH KUMAR, D/O. LATE R. SHIVASHANKAR, AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3, 8^TH CROSS, SHAKTHI GANAPATHI NAGAR, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BANGALORE-560079. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. AISHYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAHAMATHULLA KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2023 PASSED ON IA No.II IN OS No.4460/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DISMISSING THE IA No.II FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(b) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:40455 CRP No. 228 of 2023

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner has challenged the correctness of the order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the XII Additional City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in O.S.No.4460/2020 by which, an application (I.A.No.2) filed by him under Order VII Rule 11(b) of Civil Procedure Code,1908 was rejected.

¶19

The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration

¶20

that the sale deed dated 05.11.2015, executed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and for consequential reliefs.

¶21

The registry of the Trial Court had raised objection No.6 to hear regarding the payment of Court fee under Section 38(1) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. The petitioner/defendant No.1 entered appearance and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(b) of Civil Procedure Code, to reject the plaint for non-payment of court fee under Section 38(1) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. The Trial Court in terms of the impugned

¶22

¶23

NC: 2023:KHC:40455 CRP No. 228 of 2023

¶24

order dated 06.03.2023 rejected the said application on the ground that the plaintiff had sought for declaration that the sale deed dated 05.11.2015 was not binding on her and therefore the Court fee paid was sufficient.

¶25

Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant No.1 is before this Court.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 submitted that when once the office note was put up regarding the proper Court fee payable under Section 38(1) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, it was incumbent upon the Court to decide it. Since it did not pass any orders, the defendant No.1 was forced to file an application

¶27

under Order VII Rule 11(b) of Civil Procedure Code. He contends that the plaintiff had claimed that the defendant No.1 was not authorized under the power of attorney executed in his favour to convey the suit property, but the power of attorney was executed in favour of defendant No.1 by plaintiff only to look after the properties. However, the defendant No.1 had conveyed it to defendant No.3 in terms of the sale deed dated 05.11.2015. Therefore, the plaintiff claimed that the said

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:40455 CRP No. 228 of 2023

¶29

document executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 was null and void and not binding upon her.

¶30

The registry of the Trial Court having raised the objection with regard to Court fee payable, it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to have considered the question whether the Court fee paid on the suit was proper or not, before registering the suit, in view of the mandate contained under Section 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 which reads as follows:

¶31

" 11. Decision as to proper fee in courts.-

¶32

(1) xxxx

¶33

(2) xxxx

¶34

(3) xxxx

¶35

(4)(a)xxxx

¶36

(b) If the court of appeal decides that the fee paid in the lower court is not sufficient, the court shall require the party liable to pay the deficit fee within such time as may be fixed by it."

¶37

No doubt, even if the suit is registered, the

¶38

defendant No.1 is still entitled to question the correctness of

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:40455 CRP No. 228 of 2023

¶40

the Court fee paid by the plaintiff on the suit. If the Court passes an order under Section 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 determining the correct Court fee payable and if the plaintiff fails to do so, then the defendant No.1 is entitled to file the application under Order VII Rule 11(b) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to reject the plaint.

¶41

In the present case, the Court has not passed any order either under Section 11 of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 or under any other provisions of law, after registering the plaint. Therefore, the question of entertaining the application under Order VII Rule 11(b) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 does not arise.

¶42

Therefore, the application is liable to be rejected, though not on the ground mentioned in the impugned order, but on the other ground mentioned in this order.

¶43

In view of the above matter, the petition is dismissed.

¶44

However, liberty is reserved to the defendant No.1/petitioner to file appropriate application under Section 11

¶45

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:40455 CRP No. 228 of 2023

¶46

of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 requesting the Court to determine the appropriate Court fee payable. In that event, the Trial Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Alternatively, the Trial Court may also consider framing of an issue regarding Court fee, so that the parties can adduce evidence on the correct Court fee payable.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

S Muralikrishna v. Smt S Shilpa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Muralikrishna v. Smt S Shilpa

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. a. Dinakar Rai, Vs State by Bajape Police Station

Sri. a. Dinakar Rai Vs State by Bajape Police Station

Mr Chandrahas T Ameen Vs Mr a Dinakar Rai

Mr.Kiran Hebbar Vs the State of Karnataka

S Muralikrishna Vs Smt S Shilpa

Shivam Brij Kishore Tiwari Vs the State of Karnataka