Karnataka High Court
Sri C Lakshminarayana vs Emaculate Conception Church on 12 October, 2022
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 13549 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI C LAKSHMINARAYANA
S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT HULIMAVU VILLAGE,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 076.
2. SRI V C SRINIVAS
S/O LATE CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT VENKATAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE-562 106.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. EMACULATE CONCEPTION CHURCH
DORESANIPALYA,BEGUR HOBLI,
BILEKAHALLI DAKHALE
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS P.A HOLDER
-2-
REVER AND FATHER T BERNARD
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
2. M/S CHAYADEEP PROPERTIES PVT.LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT,1956
HAVING ITS REGISERER OFFICE AT
NO.92,6TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK,
JYANGARA, BANGALORE560 041.
3. MR SADASHIVA BALIGA
HINDU,MAJOR,
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONERS,
R/AT NO.714, 6TH CROSS,
4TH MAIN, H.A.L,III STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 075.
4. SRI BHARATH BALAJI
S/O SRI S G BALAJI,
R/AT NO.28/82, AKSHAYA",8TH CROSS,
ASHOKANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 050.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R A DEVANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N. SRINIVAS AND SRI. P.B. RAJU,
ADVOCATES FOR R2
SRI. S. SHAKER SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R4 SERVED UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON I.As. 9
AND 10 IN O.S.7252/2008, ON I.As 6 & 7 IN
O.S.7258/2008 ON I.As. 4 & 5 IN O.S.7259/2008 AND
ALL DATED 1.1.2018 BY 3RD ADDL. CITY CIVIL COURT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEX-Q, R
AND S RESPECTIVELY.
-3-
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is by the common plaintiffs in three different suits in O.S.Nos.7252/2008, 7258/2008 and 7259/2008 on the file of the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short, 'the civil Court'). The nature of the petitioners' dispute against the different defendants/respondents is the same, and the reason for this petition is also similar.
2. The civil Court has framed preliminary Issue in each of these suits on whether the Court fee paid by the petitioners is proper and sufficient; and enquiry is also commenced in this regard. The petitioners' request to summon the revenue records from the concerned on whether the subject properties are diverted from agricultural to non-agricultural uses is rejected. The petitioners have called in question the -4- similar orders in these three suits, and this Court has granted stay of further proceedings.
3. Sri M. Ashwathanarayana Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anil Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for the third respondent - one of the defendants in O.S.No.7258/2008 and Sri.N.Srinivas, the learned counsel who appears for the second respondent - one of the defendants in O.S.No.7252/2008, are heard and they are unanimous that in the light of the decisions of the Full Bench of this Court in Venkatesh R. Desai v. Smt. Pushpa Hosmani and Others1 and Mrs. Elfreeda Winnifred D'souza vs. Mr. Robin D'souza and Others2 the Issue relating to the Court fee need not be taken as preliminary Issue unless it impacts jurisdiction and the question of valuation of a property, which is within the local limits of municipal authority, will have to be examined in the light of the latter Full Bench decision.
1 2019 (1) KCCR 1 (FB) 2 ILR 2022 KAR 529 -5-
4. Further, they are unanimous that the Issue on Court fee can be dealt with the other Issues after completion of trial in the light of the first of the decisions and therefore, the petition could be disposed of as observed accordingly. In fact, the learned counsels are unanimous that none of the parties can let in further evidence on the Issue relating to the Court fee because the evidence is already completed and further evidence, if any, must be only on the other Issues.
5. If these are the unanimous submissions, Sri.Aswathanarayana Reddy submits that because the third respondent has commenced construction in the existing building taking advantage of the interim orders granted by this Court, the petitioners are constrained to file an application for necessary orders restraining the third respondent from proceeding with such construction. He submits that this Court must take up such application for consideration or dispose -6- of that application also with liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate application in the concerned suits.
6. Sri Anil Kumar Shetty, the learned counsel for the third respondent, responding to these submissions, states that the third respondent has not undertaken any new construction and he has commenced certain repair and renovation work and crucially, Sri Anil Kumar Shetty submits that every construction by the third respondent in the subject property, irrespective of the nature, will have to be subject to the outcome of the suits. In rejoinder, Sri M.Aswathanarayana Reddy submits that this Court could take that submission on record as that would protect the petitioners' interest.
For the foregoing the following:
ORDER
(a) The petition is disposed of calling upon the civil Court to take up the Issue on Court fee simultaneously with the -7- other Issues after the parties led their evidence on the other Issues. The parties are not permitted to lead fresh evidence, without express leave of the civil Court, on the question of Court fee as enquiry is completed.
b) The civil Court shall consider the question of sufficiency of Court fee paid in the light of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Mrs. Elfreeda Winnifred D'souza vs. Mr. Robin D'souza and Others.
c) Every construction by the third respondent or any other respondents in the respective subject property shall be necessarily subject to the final outcome of the suits.
Sd/-
JUDGE SA ct:sr