Partly allowed

Sri. Suresh v. Sri. Puttaraju

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2024CRP/660/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses the Civil Revision Petition against an order rejecting a plaint for alleged court fee deficiency. The High Court reserved liberty to frame a preliminary issue regarding court fee sufficiency and kept all contentions open for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed reserving liberty to file application for framing preliminary issue regarding court fee sufficiency.

Sri. Suresh Vs Sri. Puttaraju — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:44544 CRP No. 660 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 660 OF 2024 (IO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SURESH, S/O CHIKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO. 8/4, 14^TH C CROSS, AGRAHARA, DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 79.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SREENIVASA G.A, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. PUTTARAJU, S/O CHIKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 9, 14tH CROSS, AGRAHARA, DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 079.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.08.2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 17 IN OS NO. 5427/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, REJECTING THE IA NO. 17 FILED U/O 7 RULE 11(b) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:44544 CRP No. 660 of 2024

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Trial Court, wherein the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was rejected.

¶22

The defendants filed the application under Order VII Rule 11(b), contending that the suit for declaration was undervalued and that the plaintiff had not paid the requisite court fee. They argued that, given the alleged deficiency in court fee, the plaint should be rejected. However, the Court noted that a plaint cannot be rejected solely for non-payment of the correct court fee. Instead, the Court must first call upon the plaintiff to pay the sufficient court fee. Only if the plaintiff, after such direction, fails to pay the requisite court fee, can the Court proceed to consider rejecting the plaint on that ground.

¶23

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner/defendant to file an appropriate application for framing a preliminary issue regarding the sufficiency of the court fee paid. If such an application is filed, the Trial Court shall consider it in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made in the impugned order.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:44544 CRP No. 660 of 2024

¶26

All contentions of the parties regarding the adequacy of the court fee paid by the plaintiff are kept open for adjudication.

¶27

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶28

PHM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Sri. Suresh v. Sri. Puttaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Suresh v. Sri. Puttaraju

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

H R Mahesh Vs State by Karnataka

B M Jayanth Vs State by Karnataka

Smt. Tanuja Monnappa Vs the Authorized Officer/Manager

Mr. Krishnappa Vs K. Ramamani

Sri. Rangaraju Vs Smt. Susheelamma

Mrs. Sharfunnissa Vs Mr. Adam Sab