Karnataka High Court
M/S Vasanth Colour Laboratories Ltd., vs Smt Divya Devi on 15 September, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2010 (4) AIR KAR R 928
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 15"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER, BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. vJEwGoFALA----'GQWbA, 'E 'V WRIT PETITION No.120o=7/20101'(ESMIQACP-CE)"ff-.___ BETWEEN: M/s. Vasanth Coiour Laboratories, Ltd., Having its Registered Office ,at"'No:;38¥A, Kengai Hanumanthaiah_P.oad_, " Bangaiore - 560 027. ' Represented by._its Managirig Digrector, Mr. Range \/E,!.sia?Ut'i1. 1 -. " ' _ ., . _ PETITIONER (By Smt for M}',sL' Indus Law, Advs.) . . , . I r\ ~_ . 1. Smt, Divya' De'Ji',_ ,_" . W/o. SriEF°reri:_ Singhj"i_.; major, Residing' at "Dhara-mbur House", ..«.1aya~maha§ "Roa_d, Jayamahai, - .-_ Ba nga ioafe. """ H KTa.riia--ataka.vState Financiai Corporation, A -.Havi'n."g--..it's= Head Office at -.,Sha.n~ka4:.=anarayana Building, 'Bangaiore -- 560 001, Reflfesented by its Managing Director. _£¥I.S.Bharath, S/0. M.Shankar Shetty, Residing at 'Roshini' 990, Naidu Street, Chickmagaiur, Karnataka. :RESPON.if5ENTS (By Sri H.V.Nagaraj Rao, Adv. for R1; Service of Notice to R2 & R3 dispensed with) This writ petition is filed under Article 22-f6"andVV'é'2'7t:'.of 4_ the Constitution of India, praying to set .asi,.d'e.xth.e order " dated 24.2.2010 passed by the Courtiof --theMXi}(.VIII»Add'i., City Civil Judge holding the valulationof t_he._suit*..for the purpose of Court fee as proper *._and suff-i.cie,nt__'*and. dismissing the application fiied bypthe petit3ioner u;nder_"; Section 18 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Sui't_V=aluation * Act read with Order XXVI Rul'e._"9' and Secticon 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, pro.du_'ce_d"--._at Annexure -- P in O.S.No.836/81 and th'_u'sy_ hoid _the.__Co"urt fee paid by the piaintiff (R1) as insufficie1nt.. < I ' .. This petition comi~n~g.._o'n fe_r~~.prel'i_rrii'n,ary hearing in 'B' group this day,~the.Court :m_fade.Vthe_~~following: he fr5?:'v«'respoinde_nt,I_pl--aintiff, has instituted a suit against the petitioner ..an--d'4'respondents 2 & 3/defendants,
seeking relief 'ofV_posse's;sion, recovery of arrears of rent and Vdayntiagésé f_o"r.,_use and occupation of the suit premises. i"'C_ou_rtAf'e-éivn respect of arrears of rent has been calculated and"'-paid asiper Section 21 read with Article 1 of Schedule I J'o.fVtl<§arn'atai<a Court--Fees and Suit Vaiuation Act, 1958 (for 's_ho'i"t':the 'Act') and the court fee in respect of the relief of i.
/'
5. On an application filed by the 1"
defendant/petitioner under Section 11(2) of the4.A_ct','i~the said issues were treated as preiiminary issuesl'_:a'n'd5fha_ving' . been answered in the negative, themlst deferid--a]§.tliiasgfiied" if this writ petition.
6. Sri Srinivasa Rag'havan,'---.learned; counsel' appearing for the petvitioner ,co'nt-endigi.t.'nat,téavppreciation of material in arriving regards the preliminary issues-.is as, there is non--consid'e'ra:t'i.ogTn'" which has been impugned order is Dervers'e,V 'ii rrati ,j&|_'»1bcl* al. Sr'i'-i._.Vlfi.V.&I:\iagaraj Rao, learned advocate ilappearvixrigy --for.,the 15" respondent, firstly contended that, by the defendant challenging the findings with regiardtlto valuation and sufficiency of court fee is not rnai.ntaiVnabie and secondly, even if some error was made i "'i~y'"the court: in the matter of appreciation of evidence and arriving at the findings as alleged, the finding cannot be \i/« ".
N .
such "pleas shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded affecting such defeltidant, on the merits of the claim. If the Conrtl:
that the sub_iect--matter of the suitlias properly valued or that the fee noltv.
sufficient, the Court shall fixa date' b§'1c:§¢_wh;ch the plaint shall be the Court's decisiCon._Vandlthe A§ee.._Vshall paid. If the plaintihe notllarnendedhior if the deficit fee K not¢.rp'ai'dr_:'wttl1in the "time allowed, the plaint .an'd_Vthe Court shall passsuch oArder:--as' regarding costs of~'tl'1e_s'uit g 2 1 =t<=I=>i=.::i<*'x_.:w=;==i= "
-the provision that, if any defendant.eo|eads--in'h'is statement that the subject- mattger has not-been oroperly valued or the court fee paid 'VTi?il'l;lSlll£llif:l€VllAt;..then it is mandatory on the part of the trial l"CQ'{;C!r_'_'r;.CAt(:i' issues so raised before recording of the evidence.' (see MUKUNDA NAYAK vs. SUNDARA NAYAK -- ('1): Mys.L.J 85, UMARABBA vs. PATHUNNI AND
-__l"0.dTHE:RS - 1984 (2) Kar.L.} 97, THE KARNATAKA if ':l_4:"'*'THEOSOPHICAL FEDERATION (R), BANGALORE vs. R /I BALAKRISHNA ASHRAMA, MULABAGAL TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT ~ 1994 (4) Kar.L.J 695, THIMMA.U§d~i,,'_:'i.VS. SREENIVASA - 1999 (5) Kar.L.3 37, A.MAoui§'vA«'vi'_l5i~ié§3n.E' vs. RAJENDRA s. REVANKAR --- 2ooo (4) ,1"
11. In the case on hand, t'hei"tr_ifal cou_--vrt"i'n decided the issues relating t(3--.i.\x/al,UatiV.()I'l.fi:'?Clf'S1.lAl:fltiiél'lVCy of if court fee payable by,holdingl'a'n:tiéi1'c[uiry and"'ha's' acted in conformity with the There is no error in exerci«seV'Vof the matter of consideration ' ._ court fee has been paid on the piaint, "pr'irnari'i';r: between the plaintiff and the State," .5-ection of the Act only enables the defendant to _,ipiea"d~A.that..,t_he subject matter of the suit has not been and that the fee paid is not sufficient, upon which""' the questions arising on such pleas shall be V. tried and decided. If the court decides that the subject 'rnat'tAer of the suit has not been properly valued and that "the fee paid is not sufficient, the court shall fix a date (2 4 1 before which the plaint shall be amended in accordance with the court's decision and the deficit fee shal'i..lje:'_:'p.aid and in case of defauit, the piaint shall be rejected'rland_j:ti1_e' court shall pass such order as it deem just"revgar.di'n.g costs"
of the suit. The provision only enables' the d'efe'n'd:§;._nt"ii:;;Q raise the contention and to' assistlxrthle court'V'f.at...,the.'3 decision of the question, but not armilthe defendant to obstruct the progress_ of the __after conducting enquiry and findings are..recordVeAd._ . 'V
13. :3fQ'ii.answe:' péint, is necessary to notice Section 11(4)Vy(Va').of:the"Act'--arrd the same reads as follows:
comes up before a Court of appeaJ','"'it Shall be lawful for the Court, either on owii""1'1'1otion or on the application of any of parties, to consider the correctness of any » _oi'i1€i; passed by the Lower Court affecting the fee . psayable on the plaint or in any other proceeding in the Lower Court and determine the proper fee payable thereon". K /' The provision confers right on the parties to the suit to raise the issue before the Court of appeal,._::'i-f,_l't_he occasion arises and in such a situation, the p_roce'duife..:'la»§._rj:' down under the said provision willhave t_o'"b'e* f9_r"' adjudicating and recovery of 'dAefi;'c:'it~:Vcourt GADIGEPPA lvs. GANGAW'\:AiA..,.. -- h*-19im(2'},,,li %75'--.t' Sh.N.285, VISVARAMA HOTELS:;VV':A'LI_MrI_fl'E[)..'\iS..:,_Al§l,.iUMAN»E~ IMAMIA AND OTHERS' §i'9s4(29j i<a"rr,'i;.i'1--,85)
14. Indis'pvri_ted:lf,'the t:rial*".c_ourtitreated the issues quoted supra"'as7preli'rn,iVnaryVissues, conducted an enquiry and theekridence placed on record, has passed order. This is not a case wherein the i_rripu.gnA'e~.db.rder can be held as one passed witshouait-rujurisdiction""'or irrational, in as much as, the trial courts -éforllioyéied the procedure prescribed under sub-
Section 11 of the Act and upon appreciation of the .e§idence, has recorded the findings and conclusion. the order is one without jurisdiction or contrary to t 10 law, there cannot be interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution In view of the foregoing discussion.,..,t4h'eVV'o.etitione'i'..,e°' has no locus standii to question Hence, the writ petition stands rejected to; observations made supra. Ho"wVe\;"er, in"'theicircu2:mstances of the case, there shavili be no'AVordVAe'r.._a=sVi'to%costs. 5 he riiwifudgé Ksj/-