Dismissed

Rayaji Hospital and Research Institute v. Satish S/O. Anandrao Paltankar

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024WP/104520/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendants challenged a trial court order allowing the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint by restricting his claim from Rs.76,00,000 to Rs.6,00,000 to bring the suit within pecuniary jurisdiction. The High Court held relinquishing part of a claim does not change the suit's nature and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rayaji Hospital and Research Institute Vs Satish S/O… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12962 WP No. 104520 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH WRIT PETITION NO. 104520 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

RAYAJI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE PRIVATE LIMITED, HOSUR HUBBALLI, REP. BY DR. GOURISHANKAR S/O. RAMAPPA RAYAJI, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O. HOSUR, HUBBALLI.

¶6

DR. GOURISHANKAR S/O. RAMAPPA RAYAJI, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O. HOSUR, HUBBALLI.

¶7

…PETITIONERS

¶8

(BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SATISH S/O. ANANDRAO PALTANKAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI.

¶11

GIRIJA A BYAHATTI

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶13

DR. LATA W/O. GOURISHANKAR RAYAJI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O. HOSUR, HUBBALLI.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. HANMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV. FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON I.A. NO.3 DATED:07.07.2018 IN O.S.NO.324/2014 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI AT ANNEXURE-G; CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE APPLICATION I.A. NO.3 FOR AMENDMENT OF THE PLAINT AND ETC.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12962 WP No. 104520 of 2018

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶22

The present writ petition is filed praying this Court to quash the impugned order passed on I.A No.3 dated 07.07.2018 in O.S No.324/2014 as per Annexure-G and consequently reject the application I.A No.3 for amendment of the plaint. The petitioners are the defendant Nos.1 and 2 before the Trial Court and the respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants/petitioners. The defendants also filed interim application under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’) for rejection of plaint, on the ground that, the suit is undervalued and court fee paid is not proper and correct. The defendants have filed their objections to the

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12962 WP No. 104520 of 2018

¶24

I.A No.2 when the I.A was filed. The Trial Court was

¶25

pleased to allow I.A No.2, directing the respondents to pay proper court fee of Rs.76,00,000/- and thereafter only the plaintiff has filed I.A No.3 for amendment of plaint. Being aggrieved by the order dated 09.11.2014, the petitioners have filed C.R.P No.100080/2014 stating that the Trial Court ought to have taken market value of the property as on the date of the suit and not on the amount of Rs.76,00,000/- and the said order was confirmed by this Court. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application for amendment restricting the prayer to only for Rs.6,00,000/- as against Rs.76,00,000/- as contended and the said application was allowed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed before this Court.

¶26

The main contention of the learned counsel for

¶27

the petitioners before this Court is that the Trial Court has committed an error in allowing I.A and ought to have allowed to amend the plaint. The Trial Court has exercised

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12962 WP No. 104520 of 2018

¶29

jurisdiction with illegality and material irregularity resulting in a great prejudice to the petitioners herein. It is also contended that by virtue of the order dated 07.07.2018, the Court cannot reviewed its own order dated 06.11.2014 on I.A No.2 and wrongly comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs can relinquish his claim in respect of market value of the suit property to bring the suit within pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.

¶30

It is contended that the plaintiff and respondent No.2 has restricted their claim for Rs.6,00,000/- thereby relinquishing his claim to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. Considering both the values the Trial Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. The Trial Court instead of rejecting the application has allowed the same. It is also contended that by virtue of the alleged GPA the person who is holding will create rights over the property and the same can be valued as per the subject matter in the said document. The subject matter of the GPA is worth of Rs.76,00,000/- and accordingly the said

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12962 WP No. 104520 of 2018

¶32

document is capable of making valuation. The impugned order is blatantly erroneous in law and patently is in violation of principles of natural justice and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The counsel would contend that the impugned order manifestly erroneous, illegal and arbitrary and the same require to be set aside.

¶33

The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the prayer sought in the plaint, but particularly brought to notice of paragraph No.13, wherein, it is specifically mentioned that the plaintiff to perform is part of the contract has sold his private properties to pay the huge amount of Rs.76,00,000/- to the defendants and later on he has also entered into many dealings with third parties. When such pleading was made and prayer is sought to declare that the revocation of irrevocable power of attorney dated 08.04.2008 is sought by the plaintiff and restricting his prayer only to Rs.6,00,000/-, hence, the Trial Court committed an error. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court I.A filed by the plaintiff/respondent and also the

¶34

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12962 WP No. 104520 of 2018

¶35

statement of objections filed by the petitioners and the Trial Court failed to consider the material on record.

¶36

Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that the Trial Court has assigned the reason while allowing the application and specifically in Paragraph No.17 the Trial Court taken note of the fact that the relief of declaration is sought with regard to the power of attorney and not in respect of the suit property. The power of attorneys are incapable of any valuation. Therefore, the plaintiffs are required to pay court fee under Section 24(d) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the (‘KCF & SV Act’), however on the market value of the suit property according to the plaintiff which is at Rs.6,00,000/-. The Trial Court also taking into note of the provisions of Section 13 of the KCF & SV Act, at this stage, the plaintiffs can relinquish their claim to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, subject to condition that he shall not be

¶37

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12962 WP No. 104520 of 2018

¶38

permitted at any later stage of the suit to add to the claim the part so relinquished and reasons have been assigned and conditions also imposed not to reclaim the same. The reason assigned by the Trial Court is not erroneous and it is left to the plaintiff to restrict his claim and it will not cause any prejudice to the defendants if the same is restricted. Hence, it does not require any interference.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents, it is not in dispute that, the suit was filed seeking relief of declaration to declare that revocation of power of attorney is illegal and also other relief is sought for permanent injunction and also it has to be noted that the defendants have also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of the CPC and the same was also allowed and directed to pay court fee of on Rs.76,00,000/- and also the same is being challenged before this Court in C.R.P No.100080/2014. The C.R.P No.100080/2014 also confirmed and not accepted the contentions of the

¶40

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12962 WP No. 104520 of 2018

¶41

petitioners herein to pay the court fee on the market value. The issue with regard to the payment of court fee is concerned is adjudicated and finally decided. But consequent to the said order, admittedly an application is filed restricting the claim of the plaintiff and relinquishing his claim in respect of the earlier claim of Rs.76,00,000/and the very contention of the petitioner counsel, the same cannot be done and only in order to avoid the payment of court fee, the said amendment is sought. It has to be noted that when the plaintiff himself has relinquishing his claim and he claims only restricting his claim of Rs.6,00,00/- and the same cannot be curtailed and it is left to the plaintiffs to make the claim, relinquishing his claim to bring the suit within the limit of his claim. The Trial Court also taken note of the said fact into consideration in paragraph No.17, it is also alleged in the plaint that, the power of attorney was executed to clear the loan and it is also the case of the plaintiff that he made the payment based on the power of attorney and the said power of attorney was cancelled after having

¶42

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12962 WP No. 104520 of 2018

¶43

cleared the loan by the plaintiff and all issues has to be decided before the Trial Court with regard to the payment and how much he made the payment and if any revocation of the power of attorney is illegal or not has to be decided before the Trial Court with regard to the first prayer is concerned. The plaintiffs claims the relief of declaration with regard to the power of attorney is concerned and also when he claims and restrict his claim only in respect of relinquished his earlier claim and bringing down the same and the same will not change the very nature of the relief sought in the suit. When such being the case, the Court can permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint when he himself has sought for restricting his claim and it will cause and prejudice to the other side.

¶44

Hence I do not find any ground in the writ petition to quash the order passed by the Trial Court. When the amendment is sought and the same will not changes the nature of the claim and the same cannot be curtailed to amend the plaint as sought. Accordingly, the Trial Court

¶45