Disposed

Sri. Dharmendra @ Subhash v. Smt. C R Jyothi @ Yamuna C R

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2024CRP/398/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC seeking plaint rejection for deficient court fee. The High Court held rejection premature since the trial Court had not determined the requisite fee, and disposed of the petition with liberty to seek a preliminary issue on sufficiency of court fee.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; liberty granted to file application before trial Court for framing preliminary issue on sufficiency of court fee.

Sri. Dharmendra @ Subhash Vs Smt. C R Jyothi @ Yamuna C R — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:45789 CRP No. 398 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.398 OF 2024 (IO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. DHARMENDRA @ SUBHASH S/O. PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT KELAGALALE VILLAGE, SUNDEKERE POST, KASABA HOBLI, SAKALESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 577 101. ... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI OMKAR BASAVA PRABHU, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. C.R. JYOTHI @ YAMUNA C.R. D/O. G.C. RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT 2^ND CROSS, VIVEKA NAGARA, HASSAN – 573 201. ... RESPONDENT *****

¶13

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.434/2022 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE IA NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a)(b)(c)(d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶14

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:45789 CRP No. 398 of 2024

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the trial Court, by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was rejected. The said application was primarily filed on the ground that, despite the observation that the suit ought to have been valued under Section 24-A of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the trial Court, instead of dismissing the suit for non-payment of the deficit Court fee, passed the impugned order. The application was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the CPC after the trial Court directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit Court fee.

¶19

Order VII Rule 11(b) of the CPC provides for the rejection of a plaint where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, upon being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time frame fixed by the Court, fails to do so.

¶20

In the present case, the trial Court did not determine the requisite Court fee that must be paid on the relief claimed by the plaintiff. Consequently, the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the CPC at this juncture would be premature and procedurally improper. The Court’s duty at this stage is to direct the plaintiff to rectify the

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:45789 CRP No. 398 of 2024

¶23

valuation and pay the appropriate Court fee before considering any rejection of the plaint.

¶24

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the trial Court, seeking the framing of a preliminary issue regarding the sufficiency of the Court fee paid by the plaintiff. If such an application is filed, the trial Court is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, ensuring that the requisite fee is determined and any necessary directions are given regarding its payment.

¶25

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶26

YKL

Sri. Dharmendra @ Subhash v. Smt. C R Jyothi @ Yamuna C R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Dharmendra @ Subhash v. Smt. C R Jyothi @ Yamuna C R

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

M/S Alekhya Property Develoments Private Limited Vs the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Sunil Kumar Vs M/S PNB Housing Finance Ltd.

Sri Hammad Basheer Byari Vs the Chairman

Smt. Gangamma Vs Sri. Anjinappa

Sri D R Devendra Raju Vs Sri S Rathinam

Sri. Thippeswamy. Y Vs Smt. Acchamma