K S Ravikumar Vs Adroitent Ites Pvt. Ltd.

(RAVIKUMAR KURUDI SIDDAPPA) AGED 45 YEARS, S/O D.S.SIDDAPPA, PRESENTLY R/AT FLAT # 404,B-8, KAILAS HOUSING COMPLEX, 3 BHK BDA FLATS, JNANABHARATHI ENCLAVE, MYSORE ROAD,KENGERI BANGALORE-560 060

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. F.S.DABALI, ADVOCATE -AMICUS CURIAE FOR K S RAVIKUMAR - PARTY-IN-PERSON-APPELLANT)

¶14

AND:

¶15

ADROITENT ITES PVT LTD

¶16

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR RAMKY SELENIUM, TOWER A 8^TH FLOOR, P.No.31 PART & 32 FINANCIAL DISTRICT, NANAKRAMGUDA VILLAGE, HUDERABAD, RANGAREDDI-500032 TELANGANA INDIA

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. NARAYANA KUMAR V J., ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC.,1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2016 PASSED

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:2752-DB RFA No. 1421 of 2016

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

IN OS NO.3430/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU REJECTING THE IA FILED U/O.17 RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶28

Heard Mr. F.S.Dabali, learned Amicus Curiae for the

¶29

appellant/plaintiff.

¶30

The present appeal came to be filed against the order dated 04.06.2016 passed by the XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru rejecting the plaint in O.S.No.3430/2012 filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

¶31

The appellant/plaintiff had filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.16,80,000/-, however, he did not pay the requisite Court fee. He had filed an application under Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 26 of CPC seeking time to pay the deficit Court fee.

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:2752-DB RFA No. 1421 of 2016

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The Trial Court, having considered the affidavit filed in support of the said application and found no merit in the application, dismissed the application. As there was deficit Court fee which was not made good, the suit also got dismissed.

¶35

This Court vide order dated 22.06.2024 has allowed the Civil Petition No.254/2018 filed by the appellant/plaintiff and permitted him to prosecute the appeal in RFA No.1421/2016 as an indigent person with a direction that if the appellant/plaintiff would succeed in the suit, he should pay the deficit Court fee of Rs.1,58,355/-, which is exempted.

¶36

Considering the aforesaid order passed by this Court, whereby the appellant/plaintiff has been permitted to prosecute the appeal as an indigent person with a direction that in case he succeeds in the suit, he will make good the deficit Court fee of Rs.1,58,355/-, we set aside the impugned order dated 04.06.2016 and remand the matter back to the Trial Court to allow the appellant/plaintiff to prosecute the suit as an indigent person with a condition that in case he succeeds in the

¶37