Karnataka High Court
Venkatamma And Ors. vs G.Jayarama Reddy on 28 July, 2008
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
xx 23: are can: or xAnnm:nxa.a: naamsaagv;
DATED THIS THE 28" may or JULY 2oe3j fq"
paxsauw
run nursna MR.JU8TIC£"?;6;s;#EAEi§ ,_ 'I'
mam nornns xa.Jusrx¢$fs,u.éhg:angaiéfix"f
REGULAR FIR$T A?éEAi"N0;796/1997.-7
sarwnzn:
1. -_. vENgaiAMA; ;,, »,~_;
w/0 LATE G£NGArREDBYa'- =
AGED gAJ¢g;aw _ .,,=»
2. SRILgQ6R%h#&$gflBfi{é.i -m»
310 LATE GANGA gEapy,_.
AGED MAJoR.§_'
3. sax G,fiENKA?A$fiAgf; f
s/o LATE GANGA nanny,
AaEQ.MAJoa,'
- ALL A3: fi£n£cgANNA$$NnRA VILLAGE;
HBANASfiABI'PGsT,,K.R.PURAM HOBLI,
BANGALO&$xfiORTH;TALUK.
' '(ay SR1 A;SHivARAmA & ASSTS.,)
"' R$9: *
4 ,'*i;h H G.JAYARAMA REDDY,
7 S/O LATE GANGA~REDD¥.
AGED MAJOR.
'..APpELLANTs _
-5-
the suit property was acquired by the and
compensation of Rs-.-63,006/-~ per acre was
and wherefore. an application was_'-f.i1ed..i'e:"'for_T'~-
amendment of the valuation m§fi§'9- in""th'a'_'vSVi:;it'.Vby'
reducing -the valuation to R:'a.6f.':-.:Q:§'-3('3fj-hi
The said application wars-.__.rejVe<:_ted c*-nit'
and the same was confirined' in ¢R§"L:Nd.3a85/1996
dated 25.11.1995 and-«tit.'$hia§_avi':'oi:saé~rved'infithe CRP
while confirming. that the trial
Court -reje<::tin;gi_'-- the for amendment
that it 12:31" Petitioners even
now "direction give by the
Court if it is permissible.
Theyraaftar, "tthieviapfiellants purchased the deficit
papers on 19.2.1997 and made an
extension of time for payment of
the..44_Vdef~i<::i£tAiVCourt fee under Section 148 of the
V'~».Civi3."P}_E53ocedure Code and an application was filed
Order '7 Rule 11(1) by the defendant to
reject the plaint as the Court fee had not been
and within the time ordered in WP.No.996-0/1987.
\/5
i_appellante fafiei the' learned Counsel for the
":eSpondents. g'
hsnbmitted that immediately after the disposal of
'tft'¢¢ng;§zo.3sa6/1996 an effort was made to purchase
___6_ ..
The trial Court by order dated 24.1o.19g:'z'_V'»-fig-1Vd
that the plaintiffs nad not paid them eéfiifiifil.
Court fee within the time granted while die§o3ing._"
of the WP.No.9960/198'? and
for extension of time pafi}"'A_t'he
fee and the plaintiffs- fleeing -feeére atohmtneir
conduct are not entitled fie égtensioe of time to
pay the deficit tenet ifeek fine ;a¢cordingly,
rejected thevlepplieetion-afetg extension of time
and rejectee tee nleint gnde: Order 7 Rule 11(1)
CPC. ."Beingl $ggrie§§§ tun tne said, order dated
24.10.1997, lthe" pleifitiffsiihave preferred this
appeal.
'}V3;¢gé'heee heard the learned Counsel for the
"',j4l'«T§§ learned Counsel for the appellants
M
V_file&*by the appellants under Order ? Rule 11 CFC
'»"K 'i5 liable to set aside.
-3-
extension of time to pay_the deficit court fee,
the order passed by the trial Court is justified
and the aondnct of the appellants éisentitle them
for any extension of time to pay the _¢éfi$i§Ai
court fee. ', V»_ --_
6. Having regard to the contentiens,urged,_'
the points that arise for determination in*this_?
appeal are:
1) Whether the impugne6:brder"§essed by the
_trisli"deyrttieste§Hm2§t1G.1997 ~gejecting"
:[the'nisint'fineer_Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is
fiustifiéd her isslis for interferenee in
"';his'ap§eé1;t H
Vi2}iWhet_order§H
~_'»fie,enswer the points as follows:-
xh1)"The_im§ugned order rejecting the plaint
\9t%.
the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. J.,It:?is
wherefore clear that the order passed "$9; the _
trial Court cannot be sustained and the séee ieu.d
liable to be set aside, as, the ybrder -na3<,§een}
passed. without--fixing :the time «for .§¢§méntj"cf"=_
deficit Court fee. 'Howe§er;=having:redard to the
conduct of the plaietiffe;diitTxis 'nedeéaary to
impose costs for ithe i:$¢¢n§éd;§nge that has
caused to :the tredeefi§en§§£ in 'dregging on the
respondents in tfie eroeeediegsgin this appeal on
the _queation*5.ofj»Eeeyeent of Court Fee.
Accordingl§;d fie: hold rthat interest of justice
requirea*ithetd*tEe »inouened. order passed by the
trial Court dated 24.10.1997 is liable to be set
diaside: and" the ylaintiffs be given three weeks
A*time free teday-for payment of deficit court fee
as per the valuation made in the plaint and the
dvdefioit Court fee shall be paid before the trial
on or before 18.8.2008 and the plaintiffs
d"-d": ahall also pay Rs.20,000/w to the respondents
towards the costs for the inconvenience caused to
W
-14-
to withdraw, shall be deposited before the trial
Court on or before 18.8.2008. If the plaintiffs
fail to pay the deficit Court fee or tho ooét§}o9x
or before 18.8.2008, the trial cc§tt;;sfié1ir",
forthwith pass an order rejecting _£fié;'§;§:nt.
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Accordingly, the apfigok is di$po$oo'of:».'
Let the lower court reooros hewtrafismitted
to the Court hoiow forthwith w;th'o copy of this
Order. ' h L h
The .fiértiéfis_aréa directéd to appear before
the triai'cofi£§;§n,ie;é.2ob3.
.....
Judge Ski/3; Iudgé