Sri B M Balakumar Vs Sri B M Arun Kumar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri B M Balakumar Vs Sri B M Arun Kumar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Findings on court fee and suit valuation in the Impugned Order dated 28.09.2021 set aside to that extent; the order dated 25.03.2022 does not survive; Trial Court directed to decide the court fee and suit valuation issue in accordance with law; all pending applications closed; order passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties.

Issue for consideration

Whether the findings on court fee and suit valuation recorded in the Impugned Order dated 28.09.2021, while deciding the impleadment application and without hearing the parties on the pre-framed valuation issue (Issue No.4), could stand. +2 more

Court's answer

Since Issue No.4 on court fee and valuation stood framed and was never argued, the parties ought to have been given an opportunity to address arguments on it; the Impugned Order does not reflect any such opportunity, so its valuation findings could not stand.

Ratio / Principle

The impleadment prayer does not survive: the Trial Court's order dated 31.01.2026 allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, and no challenge to that order can be maintained in this petition.

Key takeaways

The findings in the Impugned Order, to the extent they fix court fee for non-agricultural purposes and decide suit valuation, are set aside; the Trial Court is to decide the issue of court fee and suit valuation in accordance with law.ratio¶¶63
As a consequence of setting aside the Impugned Order, the order dated 25.03.2022 does not survive.ratio¶¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (GM-CPC) under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution by the plaintiff in O.S.No.977/2009 (a partition suit claiming 1/3rd share) challenging (i) the order dated 28.09.2021 of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, rejecting his application I.A.No.12 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC for impleading proposed defendants Nos.4 to 27, and (ii) the common order dated 25.03.2022 rejecting I.A.No.14 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and I.A.No.15 under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. With proceedings before the Trial Court stayed by this Court on 30.06.2022, the Court noted that the Trial Court had since (order dated 31.01.2026) allowed the impleadment application, so that limb of the petition did not survive. The Court held that although the Trial Court had framed Issue No.4 ('Whether the valuation made and court fee paid is correct and insufficient?') on 06.02.2017, it had, while deciding the impleadment application, recorded findings directing valuation under Section 35(1) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act and court fee on market value for non-agricultural properties, without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard on the framed issue. Accordingly, the findings in the Impugned Order fixing court fee for non-agricultural purposes and deciding valuation were set aside; the order dated 25.03.2022 consequently did not survive; and the Trial Court was directed to decide the court fee and suit valuation issue in accordance with law. Petition partly allowed; all pending applications closed; decision passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties.

NC: 2026:KHC:6975 WP No. 10275 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

WRIT PETITION NO. 10275 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. B.M.BALAKUMAR S/O SRI. B.M.MUNISWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/A BYRATHI VILLAGE, BIDHARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 077.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. C.SHANKAR REDDY., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. B.M.ARUN KUMAR S/O SRI. B.M.MUNISWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/A BYRATHI VILLAGE, BIDHARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560 077.

SRI. K.ANANTHAPPA S/O LATE SRI.KANAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/A BYRATHI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 077.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V.VISHWANATH., ADVOCATE FOR [ABSENT)

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6975 WP No. 10275 of 2022

HC-KAR

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 28.09.2021 MADE ON I.A. NO.12 FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 (2) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S.NO. 977/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU THE ANNX-G TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION. QUASH THE COMMON ORDER DTD. 25.03.2022 MADE ON I.A. NO.14 FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT AND ON I.A. NO.15 FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, MADE IN O.S. NO.977/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU THE ANNX-K TO THE WRIT PETITION, REJECTING THE SAME AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATIONS BY GRANTING THE RELIEFS IN I.A.NO. 14 AND I.A. NO. 15.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL ORDER

The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 28.09.2021 passed in O.S.No.977/2009 by learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (hereinafter ‘Impugned Order’). By the Impugned Order an application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, 1908 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was rejected by

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6975 WP No. 10275 of 2022

HC-KAR

the learned Trial Court. The present petition also challenges an order dated 25.03.2022, which was filed seeking review of the Impugned Order.

None appears for the respondents despite service.

Given the pendency of the matter and the fact that

stay of proceedings before the learned Trial Court was granted by this Court on 30.06.2022, this Court deems it apposite to hear and decide the matter today.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as concerns the Impugned Order dated 28.09.2021 is in two parts. The first part of the order was a decision on the valuation of the suit property while the second part was a decision on the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading the proposed Defendant Nos.4 to 27. He submits that so far as concerns the

second part, the learned Trial Court has recently by an order dated 31.01.2026 allowed the application for impleadment and thus the prayer for impleadment does not survive.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6975 WP No. 10275 of 2022

HC-KAR

This Court has been handed a copy of the order dated 31.01.2026 passed by learned Trial Court. By order dated 31.01.2026, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC has been allowed. Thus there cannot be any challenge to the same in this petition.

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court while deciding the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC has also given a finding on the suit valuation without giving any opportunity to the petitioner/plaintiff to be heard on this aspect, which cannot be sustained.

Learned counsel for the petitioner explains that, at present the trial in the matter has commenced and learned Trial Court had already framed an issue of the court fee and valuation, which issue although not argued, was decided by the learned Trial Court by the Impugned Order. Thus, he submits that finding of the learned Trial Court qua the suit valuation in the Impugned Order requires to be set aside.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6975 WP No. 10275 of 2022

HC-KAR

The record also reflects that the issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 06.02.2017 and that the issue of valuation and court fee was framed as Issue No.4 in the following manner:

“Whether the valuation made and court fee paid is correct and insufficient?”

An examination of the Impugned Order reflects that the learned Trial Court has while deciding the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, proceeded to give a finding

on court fee and valuation of the plaint. The relevant

extract of the Impugned Order is set out below:

“4. The suit is for partition of 1/3rd share and also declaration to declare that GPA dated 20-02-1992 does not bind and court fee of Rs.200/- is paid, by valuing under section 35(2) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act.

5. As per averments made in IA.No.12 filed under order 1 rule 10(2) of CPC, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of portion of suit properties. Therefore, at this stage court feels, the suit ought to have been valued under section 35(1) and also they should have sought for recovery of possession and also declaration to declare that the registered sale deeds do not bind their share. But no reliefs have been sought against proposed defendants, instead simply filed the IA. Therefore, without seeking proper prayers against proposed defendants no.4 to 27, the application is not maintainable.

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6975 WP No. 10275 of 2022

HC-KAR

6. Therefore, before rejecting the application the court needs to give an opportunity to plaintiffs to make proper corrections namely :

1. The court fee on market value in respect of non agricultural properties.

2. The suit is to be valued under section 35(1) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act in view of proposed defendants are in possession of portion of suit property.

3. The prayer in respect of sale deeds of proposed defendants no.4 to 27 is to be sought.

Therefore, stage is given for compliance of above particulars by 25-10-2021”.

[Emphasis supplied]

As can be seen from the records, that no arguments on Issue No.4 were referred to on that date, the only arguments adverted to were on the impleadment application. In any event, since an issue was framed on court fee and valuation, the parties ought to be given an opportunity to address their arguments on the same. The Impugned Order does not reflect the same.

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6975 WP No. 10275 of 2022

HC-KAR

Accordingly, the findings in the Impugned Order to the extent that it fixes court fee for non-agricultural purposes and decides valuation are set aside. Since the Impugned Order is set aside the order dated 25.03.2022 does not survive. The learned Trial Court shall decide the

Tissue of court fee and suit valuation in accordance with law.

The petition is partly allowed in the aforegoing terms. All pending applications stand closed.

The order being passed today without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties.

Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

SNB/RJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

7 -