Disposed

Smt. Shylaja v. Smt. Mallamma

Karnataka HC17 Dec 2024CRP/881/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against rejection of an application to reject a plaint for insufficient court fee on an easement suit. The High Court held that rejection under Order VII Rule 11(b) requires prior determination of the proper court fee and disposal with liberty to file a fresh application.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners given liberty to file a fresh application on sufficiency of court fee, to be treated as a preliminary issue by the trial court.

Smt. Shylaja Vs Smt. Mallamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:52179 CRP No. 881 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 881 OF 2024 (IO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SHYLAJA, W/O PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, ADDRESS AS SHOWN IN PLAINT NO. 13, NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, BASAPURA, ELECTRONIC CITY, BENGALURU - 560 100.

¶9

CORRECT ADDRESS: NO. 25/1, SLN NILAYA, OPP. ANIL BAKERY, NEAR KARTHIK ENCLAVE, BASAPURA VILLAGE, ELECTRONIC CITY BENGALURU - 560 100.

¶10

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. M. MUNIYAPPA REDDY, S/O LATE M. MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, AT NO. 410, SAPTHAGIRI NILAYA, 11TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS ROAD, BEML LAYOUT, THUBARAHALLI, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560 066.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SMT. LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. GIRISH KUMAR B.M., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. MALLAMMA, W/O LATE M. KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

¶16

T.K. LOKESH REDDY, S/O LATE M. KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:52179 CRP No. 881 of 2024

¶19

RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NO. B 008, VAISHNAVI TNR APARTMENT, OPPOSITE KEERTHI GARDENIA, VARTHUR MAIN ROAD, NEXT TO VIBGYOR HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, THUBARAHALLI, NEAR KUNDALAHALLI GATE, BENGALURU - 560 066.

¶20

SRI. VENKATESH. K, S/O LATE M. KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO. 703, 'C' BLOCK, VASWANI BRENTWOOD APARTMENTS, VIBGYOR HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, THURBARAHALLI, NEAR KUNDALAHALLI GATE, BENGALURU - 560 066.

¶21

SRI. MANJUNATH. K, S/O LATE M. KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO. A-208, VAISHNAVI TNR APARTMENT, VARTHUR MAIN ROAD, NEXT TO VIBGYOR HIGH SCHOOL, THUBARAHALLI WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560 066.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2024 PASSED ON I.A. IN OS.NO.1256/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE I.A. FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 (b) AND (c) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:52179 CRP No. 881 of 2024

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the trial court, wherein the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(b) and (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was rejected.

¶30

The petitioners contend that the suit ought to have been valued in accordance with the provisions of Section 30 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). It is further contended that the trial court, without properly considering the provisions of Section 30 of the Act which deals with payment of court fees in relation to suit for easements, has erroneously passed the impugned order.

¶31

Be that as it may, it is pertinent to note that a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the CPC only after the determination of the proper court fee payable on the plaint. If the court determines that the court fee paid is insufficient, and the plaintiff fails to pay the deficit court fee as directed, only then can the plaint be rejected under the said provision.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:52179 CRP No. 881 of 2024

¶34

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioners to file a fresh application before the trial court raising the issue of the sufficiency of the court fee paid on the plaint. If such an application is filed, the trial court is directed to treat the issue of sufficiency of the court fee as a preliminary issue and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, determining the court fee payable on the plaint.

¶35

In the event that the trial court finds the court fee paid to be insufficient, it shall call upon the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee. If the plaintiff fails to comply with such direction within the time stipulated by the trial court, the trial court shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the CPC.

¶36

It is clarified that the observations made in the impugned order shall not prejudice or influence the trial court in adjudicating the preliminary issue regarding the sufficiency of the court fee.

¶37

All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open for consideration in accordance with law.

¶38

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶39

GPG

Smt. Shylaja v. Smt. Mallamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shylaja v. Smt. Mallamma

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. Yogeshwari G., Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Rumana Bai Vs Union of India

M/S Agni Aero Sports Adventure Academy (P) Ltd. Vs Government Flying Training School

Shantagouda Vs the State through

Mr Surender Jain Vs Union of India

Can Fin Homes Ltd. Vs Iswar Rao