S Sudesh Vs Syed Babajan

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24/08/2024 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT DEVANAHALLI IN OS NO. 1109/2024, IN IA NO. 4, VIDE ANNX-A FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ETC.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:36332 WP No. 25291 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The short question with which the present petition is filed is with regard to valuation of the subject matter of the suit. The suit is one seeking cancellation of a registered General Power of Attorney in respect of an immovable property bearing No.79, measuring 5 acres situated at Shettigere Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Apparently, respondents/plaintiffs initially valued the suit as per the valuation slip dated 12.10.2023, produced at page No.109 of the writ petition, under Section 26C of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1958 and had paid the Court fee of Rs.250/-. Thereafter, an application came to be filed by the respondents/plaintiffs in I.A.No.4/2024 produced at page No.105 to the writ petition seeking to file a fresh valuation slip, as per valuation slip dated 27.04.2024 produced at page No.111, in terms of which, respondents/plaintiffs sought to pay the Court fee at Rs.290/-.

¶34

Statement of objections to the said application came to be filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 as per page No.112 of the petition, contending that the market value of the

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:36332 WP No. 25291 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

schedule property is about Rs.37,50,00,000/- and that the

¶38

Court fee payable would be more than Rs.21,00,000/-.

¶39

By order dated 24.08.2024, impugned in this writ petition the trial Court allowed the application in I.A.No.4 filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, permitting them to pay the revised Court fee as per the valuation slip enclosed therewith. Being aggrieved by the same the present writ petition.

¶40

Sri. Vighneshwar S. Shastri, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri. Mohan Kumar G., learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submits that considering the relief sought in the suit, which involves immovable property valuing more than Rs.37,50,00,000/-, the respondents/plaintiffs ought to pay the Court fee considering the market value. Since the nominal Court fee is sought to be paid, the said application ought not to have been allowed by the trial Court despite the objection by the petitioner/defendant No.1. He further submits the petitioner/defendant No.1 has indeed filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-payment of the Court fee. Without considering

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:36332 WP No. 25291 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

these aspects of the matter, the trial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs in I.A.No.4, which has caused prejudice to the petitioner /defendant No.1. Hence the petition.

¶45

Sri. H. Kantharaj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. Chamaraj M, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, on the other hand submits that payment of Court fee is a matter of fact which needs to be ascertained by the trial Court. The contention of the plaint being liable to be rejected is untenable inasmuch as there has been no determination of the Court fee yet. He further submits, if in the event of the trial Court coming to the conclusion of the respondents/plaintiffs requiring to pay additional Court fee in accordance with law, the same would be complied with. He submits that alone cannot be a ground for the petitioner/defendant No.1 to stall the proceedings by filing the present petition. Hence seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶46

In response, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.1 submits that if in the event of this Court disposing of the present petition keeping open the issue

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:36332 WP No. 25291 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

regarding payment of Court fee to be determined by the trial

¶51

court the purpose of filing this writ petition will be served.

¶52

Heard and perused the records.

¶53

The suit is one for cancellation of registered general power of attorney dated 01.07.2023 and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. Plaintiffs/respondents seem to have valued the suit initially as per the valuation slip dated 12.10.2023, produced at page No.109 and subsequently by application in I.A.No.4 has sought to revise the said valuation by filing another valuation slip, which is the issue of contention in the present petition.

¶54

In view of the submissions made by the learned Senior counsels for the respective parties, it is clear that there is a consensus at bar that the issue regarding payment of Court fee could be considered by the trial Court afresh and if in the event of respondents/plaintiffs found liable to pay the Court fee, same will be paid in accordance with law.

¶55

In that view of the matter, no purpose would be served in keeping the present writ petition pending. As such,

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:36332 WP No. 25291 of 2024

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

notwithstanding the impugned order dated 24.08.2024, this writ petition is disposed of directing the trial Court to consider afresh the contentions urged by the plaintiffs/respondents as well as by the petitioner/defendant No.1 on the issue of payment of Court fee by framing an issue in this regard and pass appropriate order after affording sufficient opportunities to both the parties in accordance with law.

¶60

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶61

RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

S Sudesh v. Syed Babajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Sudesh v. Syed Babajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. B. N. Munivenkatappa Vs Sri. B. N. Muniraju

Sri K Sutheethachar Katti Vs Sri Suresh S Bijapur

Mrs Lissi Mini Vs Mr M Chandran

M/S Abhishek Developers Vs Smt Gowramma

Smt Jayamma Vs Sri Nyatha Reddy

Smt Meera Ramu Vs Sri G v Ramesh