Smt H Lakshmamma vs State Of Karnataka on 14 March, 2008

[Cites 2, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Smt H Lakshmamma vs State Of Karnataka on 14 March, 2008

Bench: Ajit J Gunjal

IN THE HIGH COIIRT OT' iiamia-T-Aiia AT' 

DATED THIS THE 28'"! DAY or MARC3;§    

nEFoRE* ;

was I-!0N'Bl..E MR. Jusncm am. ﬁmuijahpwg  ._

 

SR]. DINAKAR HA1,

S,/o MRAYAM RAI, V

AGED ABOUT :29 YEARS, I
R/O SUVARNA €ND,*_
MLELINA MOGRLJ. --_aT*1€2xv:.R,. 1 
MANGALORE-5575 902- =   

1-1 1- '

{ V 'R1, B.L. :c..+§;f;V}*inf..'*.~}».,."'
A N D:

1. SR1. K. Go?ALAKR1sHI¢A,'~...~~
s;u~:m1.sAn::ApPA,, -
Amen ABOUT 43~Y"EARS,
'R._/ATi,.A°'SHi"JA CHARENA"

A III 'TIA

' nJt'1iE\i C<'.Tn.iPGiJ'ND, A'I"i'nvnm1,

 

' - MAuGgmR3--575 002.

2;  s'1--L$;1v:..A1§v';é.,

,:r.:1   ALVA,

ﬁLGEl3!ABO'UT 23 YEARS,

PRQP: ALVA FINANCE 8:. INVESTMENTS rs)

AA 11 FLOOR, VAMANSHRAM G.I-LS. ROAD,
' MANGALORE-575 oo 1.

  RESPONDENTS

_ .. ......

 fiavsrzx.1=UND1KA11sHwARAE3HA'T,ADv.F R 1;

'T'Hi§  P""'i"i'T'10iVi iS FiLE1') UNDER AMECLES 226 ﬁ1'u'D 227 F
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
GRIJER PASSE BY THE COURT' OF THE I :'sDDETIO!'¥.".L CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN.) MANGALORE DATED 29.10.2005 PASSED ON I.A.NO.X IN
0.8 W' "974 OF 2001 VIBE ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE COURT

uI'\JI|aJ»?l-I

BELOW TO FRAME ADDITIONAL ISSUES REGARDING VALUATION FOR



NI

THE F'U'R'F'OSE GE?' COURT  :'u'oiD THE JURISDICTIGPJ A3 _.'.""".-§Gi9','*'~»TT."£:1'.'.:?.D
BY THE PE'I'I'I'IONER UNDER I.A.N0.X. ' "  

This writ petition having been l1t3§1'd"A4'1'i'3St3I3:R$d    
Orders and coming on this day fog pronctxiiﬁné;-n1ent,«.A t';__1e'« ..

Court pro11oLu1ce.d U16 following:

."q..%£_'-"

9 P. n 1::   A

In this writ pci;iLiu11,    2-"-
dclhlxdant in 0.8. No.3':$5/  Vjﬁlt: (Jr the
I Additional Civil  Ixaangaluw has
qL.:csLiunt:d   No.10 dated

f39.1G.2GG5 jw}-rj_"1%b-1" $%£;e=:51=piisaLia;11 "lea! by 1.11.': pt'.-Li1.il.'-.|I1I3!'

under If-2ult:'_'  w_ii3133cc1iu11 151 "'""' has bt:t:11

disznissed, 4' _

 '2.  iiI6"ica_1__'_1jt:(i Cauiissel app«i:'a1"1*g f"r the 

 mid ..pe1.'_u':set1 Ii1_<_: 1't:co1'd of lht: writ petition.

A  "Lx11<T: l1'iea1 L'5oLu'L11as failed to t3K6I'CiSC the ju1'i:sdici.io11 vested

A   'ii1'i!j'..'i«.l1l(l(3I'RL11t3 14 Rule 5 CPC and the i1ﬁpug11t:d order is

 u ....if1ega1. Lcamcd Counsel cuuumdcd that it is ma11daLo1'y

A'.
u



In

issue of Lczmﬁ  aim': ju:*'sdi"-""11  aiiae, ﬁfe '-°~%'1::x_-:f  .

have.-been Iuised and decidtzd as PI_'_G1i11Ii11a3.")?'iS%ii1€3;iI1'Uie3N 

of Section 11(3) of the  

Valuation Act, 1958 ('Act' I'c»'zV'__v-:'sl.;_t1'1'L')';'v-  

"'."-nl-=u:.i.-r.. $111.1- 1...: 1';-:_.._*_u11a_: t,a__,sig:';cd'..by 1,1115 .l;_ia1,7Cuuz'L to

d amiss IA iw.1u as   

were 00    add-iliolml -issues were
also 'f1'a1i1cg_i "Q11  co11sidu1'i11g.'L11c pleadings, "by

the    pointed out. that IA No.5

 cléféixdmit/2nd rc::syo1_1dc11t- Imivcizi, was

_'_ ' ' II
A:....w.'-.=.-l-.. J; 0' ..- -..-.... ....-. ' ' '
diapuﬁud 'U; byaih ' in} &Lu€. an 2.7.2001, __m '..e*..-.* .01'

 _ wlxiﬁh, U:;_'1t3-  Court is justified in pa.-sgsillg um impuglaed

  0L.K.=.£=lI"11t3d Counsel comellded that in '_ of l.hc_

  Hated 02.07.2004 passed by the.  Comt, IA No.5.

 " ".ﬁ.1é:.t.1_L:y Ll-1.. 1, _.1_iti.-:;m1' is nuL111a_i11LaJ'na_b1c a1u_i'*i's"11it by the

- -. --.- I -- T ....... u: !";-.u my -unis.'  I l'I'\l'|

pI'iI1L',i])'1€3B'(}f  j diuum. ucumad \..auu.uaI:L iltiauuu-u._ 1:

the dé2cisi011 61' the Hozﬂblc Suplelne Court. i11_.--Tnlhe cast: of

0 -Sdtyadhyan Ghana! and others: as smt. D¢qrqjln-D§bt

\/

.f_' I



all

I

{he rcconi of the writ; ps1il.io11V,:i._I'1c poi1_1'l'."-- tl1aL  12):'  

co11sids1'ai:ion is:

1 ...., at... .:..-._";'.s."....._}:   _ 1 r-.._., __...u
W1 CU C1 LIIC ll.Il1JL:g,!1CU'_' vy'rJ;llCI 53': * Q1533} IUJ. IIUL
exercising the juﬁsQictipn_vt§stsd iryths tn'aI Court?

6. The m1Llispt1@§3d I's1:l.s   Vh.¢:gaﬂ1e1'ed from the

Tllgt !_l1c:AVVVl *-"'».1fss1:gi1ds1~1_l.has Filed 03 No.395/ 2001 in
the trial   Pctitiollsr, who is the 21*"

u. -uu.u.4 .. punt

.. . ._ 2 . ...¢. . .',.--. .. ....' -.1........l . 0 1 (V1 nnnn
 '..1U:.I:J...$-§,t:I.!..lL 1 uxc :N,uL, J D 1 Utiu GA. puns 1.1 t).l"'\Jl"".&UU£¢-

"2_V2»"§"1't;:spQI:de;it 11c1t2i11, who is 15* defendant. in the suit,

 w11'Lu:n slalmxlclll. on 19.08.2002.

'.C011sids1'*i11g' the avemmxxts made in the plaint and the

 j\';,eu13.ii_j§l_L.t_.:;L1_ si;a_.tems1.;_L of c.lc.:l'¢:1.1d_a_11_t no. .1, the E13131 C{J.L.l1'l. has

('1 -.l"....-. .-.. (I... - --.£

" _'.l'_.,',V.'_--._".l :-._.,-_._.1 ...._ (15 0 nnnn 1.4- -1 3 -4 z..- ._ a
'uagucu lbblltxl U11 £D.UO.AUU£. 1"' UC-1U Llislllt 111 UJU bull.

%1}ad ﬁled IA No.5 in the trial Court, tu name the additional

issues, that is :

\
ii



III

1' ihis ( nn-I I;_.ga_5 'I'll-'. ~11 Ii
........ .......... - I... ..

I _
...-.....
.

cxde the above suit'?

2. WheLhe1' the above suit has been valued for the purpose of Co111*_tu" *--fee_f'a"11d:"*-we * _}u1'1sd1cuun?

..1..n51;1...1'a.11g |_.e -.:...1.r.. ..}.rp11eal.,...u mg -.11_=:r.V,ag«_!.1:a!.,_I;e;.\.I-.!a~= "1? E 1101. a party 'to the suie deed, si11_ce F V 1V.was_'u;:.'pe k:1'()sSh exanlined and the suit had bee1f22T¢T1Vj<,wL_11'11e'(1.V.t'<t')'i8. for the said purpose, Lliahh is not proper to e11te1'lai;_1 the gem of the appiication to 1eel.'?aL~3ide'V"Ii1e"t3ifdei"'piaeihg him ex pane was ﬁled on the said application, the trial Con:-L"by4'iLs'e1-(lei-'diiLed"J23.08.2005, has set aside the 011133 Llaleti Lmder which the defendant f:peﬁLo11e1' herein, has ﬁled his written V VV statelﬁezxt~-.i§'ild"""U1e trial Court. 11213 I'I'a1ned the additional iSj.-?nV:L1(:e..e_.4(_)1136.09.2004. Filidiug that the pleadings in the w1'iU.ei1'ASlaLe111e11l. vega1'di11g ju1'isdicliu11 of the Court and rf=4v;A_r!|1I-A1 rs'. If run A art :1] 1-Iwha-It 4\-1 ~:.'.u.. ......... .. . .4... ..... -. I - .1 u;r.vuun.41... J u: uuLuL xv...» auu .u.: F u; euuuu u 1 :1 1 UL been taken into eonside1'al.iun and the issue in that regard Y has not. beczn raistxd and that such issues a1'iss.__fo1' cunsidclatioli in View of the defence taken in l.i;t§4'vV\('VI'iLi.t:'I1V slaw-111c1it., IA No.10 was ﬁled under Order 14 _ with Section 151 CFC, for framitug ':L3I_\I IIJIJ-V .l.\'.!i.:II..l-Lac!-

"1. W11c[l1C1' the plaiiiiill" has H vnhmd the relief___f(5':d_tht; piirpnss of court fee"a1idj11iisc1iciioii?._A '0 'A

2., Whcl.ln:r 1;§iti\it:;3 that '. 0' I u ' '. ",_a €"'"""'* *'4=::=:. 3*.-;=.-M" '~?.:'i"._11'}'$'."'v'""""°'i'}1'.'r3 nalul I.'-at Ill lillllaiv...

3, is.,w'i;esi1;c;s: ti1t§,1iiaiiiiiiE'v1')1i)Ve's that this «rf:mi's*t'~Eifias'-.g<)t"'~pr:mifs.imfy juris-zdiction to ;§:11te1"£aii1"t1'is s"1'1it?'§ P1ainl.i[I' 11ati_"*1i:_iegi'¥_cu1,in1,e1'_ to the said application co11Le11di1ig,VV_ﬂ:al,,' "me pI'OCBBdi'l1g8, IA 10 has been £;i1sc.l_ and siiitit: proper issues have already been

---

fiie3:i1ii.igi 'a:iiy:,__a£idiiioi1a1 issues ami ﬂit: appiicaiiun to be _false"'&u1cl__"I1is()ious. Trial Court a['ts1' cuiisidcmatioii, has H 1.116: impugned order on 29.10.2005 dismissing IA » :7. Order 14 Rule 1 of CPC pI'UVidt3S that when a material proposition of fact. or law is aﬂirincd by the one X, /,

-4

-nuns»-in; grunt] Ala.)-In-:.n.I:' 'II: ('Ina )\'1IJ.I'I' ;uuIIl.II:

Pal Ly \l\J.I. I) la \Jl4II'.ll , ADO eunsideialion. Matelial pI'0p0SiLi011S ~ propositions of law or fact, which e»plai11ti$f in K 2 order to show a right to sue or a defei.ide1xtiin1Vi1e£ eitier Lu eo1_zeliLu1e his c1ei't:m;e,4"Eac11'imgztteiial j}i'Op0$ji1io11"" i ..n:-.......1 1... -...-.u.. .....a .1... 7 ,.."1'..1.;:.. 1;... - . .53. tzuuuncu u_y uuc: pun. tsuu 1:33.:-iiizu u' «:4 :3 uiiiﬁi in all fﬁllii the subject of a distinct. 'iee't1e,..x$J'1:ﬁe1'1=ea1;'be issues of fact and/or 01' law, "Ii,g;:;J{1,iu:1qi'~:§;;i.i_§.iV1¢g~,aii1iLLe11 statement. ﬁled by meek ye-iiii"oi.3_e1-"-.i:.1: imam Court, requ'11'ed for ..in1i"L"sakn-ye ijjiyt_i"'ie"'-wiii'"peiil.iu11 reads as follows: "2. Plaii:1lixTie]_11u--!:. eiilitled for the Ieliefs claimed in 4{l}it:e,plaJ'11[.' .._Seetiu11 24((:) and Section 26(0) of the 'eogart. fee Act 'is---.-------mat applicable to the neliefs claimed in '-the pheint. P1;-..L1!z'i'f has sought for a cleclamtnlon " ~tha.1"ﬂ_ie nsele deed dated 16.2.1999 is illegal and vC>'i:{';'--«ii1e S816 deed, plaintiﬁ is a party. if "the is a party for the sale deed and if that sale deed is sought to 'be set aside, court': fee has be on the market vaiue of the property covemd by AA the..e§ale deed. However, in the present case, plaintiff"

valued the reliefs uncle: Section 24(0) and _Section 26(c) is in applicable for the relief which the "l.9.i1*.*....**"' has soiwht for in the 1"-1....min.t." 1" '*5 I"

Since the pel.itiu11e1'/defendant. no.2, has denied the plaint . and has /' /,.

9 s o e- .

I 4'- ... 1.. ..,........,¢» . 1'... .,.-_..1 e;.eo1..*u.u.'u"y I'a1eed the issue 13181 *1 5 L uu1 'AC-_ aiuu jLI1'iS(llCl.l0I1, at. the threshold itself, wiﬁled, [additional issues on 3O.9.2OO4,~~~ei141ce.'_l l.l1ie"e-Vi$~Sue'_j_w'il.l1l' regard to valuation of the suit of court fee and julisdiclioli, --llazl% 11oL"bee:J."'l;AfNo, IL':

Ilrll VVCI.

51'.' ﬁled ls" we 15:'o'l.ili£fll"I'. by the trial Court Lo dis111ise4l'l)§;_"S--' 3._9.S-3004, was that party to the docu1nenL,;' in the dU(JL11I1b'llL is not tl1e"baeie'j;fo1'l' :;%;1'i1i\}i1:g $:l_L.';!'t;"='I;!I,_l1Li...1'_',-v' _,iI,L"l:~:d.ir.-.191; of the «.,u'"""uI'-'L émd ._l1ei.i.i:e«."i;l1e1::"wag: 3'10 iletzessily for raising ihai. i:~3:sue,__ l.l1at"~.apa1f£-_ posted the n1a.l.Le1' for CIUSS " " .¢J{e2iI.jI&1°i11?=l~,Li(JI1. H ' **** " "

"3. v'vCi'om1eei for the plailltill'/'1'espomlenl_. No.1, plaeitigv-._'i'eii:al11ce on the decision of the Apex Court in the of : Satlxadhyan Glxosal (eupm) contended that iniiilciplee of res judicata applies also as between two whel.l1e1' the trial court. 01' a higher court having at an earlier stage decided a 1naLt.e1'i11 one way will not allow the V f"

parties to 1'6-agitate Lhc 111aLtc1' again at a stxbgatjﬁl-2;eI.;l. Counsel is that since: the p1'ayc1gi1_1 deft:11danLnu.1 was for the same pi;u}x)se:,*' was 't:(_')'1z.e.§'.ic.'l'ic:1«'t'3'd,;_:

and dislxnisscd on 0'2.07.'2004[V,__V'i!L;e 1-FA .11.-1_I.T.¢;.-.4 _...: 1't:..* Iu¢_1it.:a.l,- . _-t. : L2'**5V_¢1t§§i'L:1_;k;1.z_;11:L;' also. Whc:lht:1' I116' by dt:fe11dant no.1 oparatcéiafs judicatfa even for defendant in :6 1.3 r__ __... ~.'.'!.'L'.T;.*-_ [in 111 my ivxcw, ~14 u11Le11ahle~.l'o1.- 1110113 A};1.1é§1a__:i);11&: mason. Though (lt:iimda11l. 110.1 l.l1tL: ':;y:;1i:...'.i1esAt't1'ﬂied IA No.5, the same was and by order dated 3.9.2003, which V ) " ~ «PIaii"1t,iI'.['s by AAK } kk "1231 by Sri KKM ) D2 _ t__ t_.,g§.: of , W1} P1'csc11i. 8; submits that issue regarding pecuniary jurisdiction.

piaiijtiﬂas is 110%. ii '.0 {he documents, consideration L / /4 10 memioned in the doeumtaliis-.is.._I1o£ basis for answering the" mzetﬂiiaiy 1'11-rviari-h-'-f-irwn rs'? :~t-u-I1-f T f_--ruxrm JLI us vvs.u he .l..l.\..r.'!§ J -I-\'.|\o'l.\/Kn-I-\I.I J.

necessity of raisilig ma:

'3. JV .

When, IA No.5 was filed, um:-side1'eeiV_ end w'ai's&A¢iisn1_i;sseti_,:

with the aJ'o1'esaid 1'ea.su11i11g, p'e:1ii.i()11e1"i;e1'ei11 W110 is 211°' defemiazit. in the Igiui. " __I'1lcd his w1'iLI_e11 placing Iiiin. ii ibis; 28.03.2004 and statement was Filed by liilxiill plea regarding valuation for the purpuseii paylnelit of court fee was 'V m..... V I - o ' ' I ,"."'r-359 _ cu'L 1 ' V1..1.l.\.a ' Luau Luv .|.u.¢:u \..ruI..u.'t., _ written statement Filed by the ].¥t1i.ii.i;OIli¢I'}'_i51.cif¢:i1(1&1Ill no.2, has raised additional issues on

30.'§.?,O()§1,'iiiuL has failed to raise the issue-with regard to eon.Le1__11:io_11_ in the wxiiteu .sLa_Le1_uenL 1.'eg,a1'd_i11g

- .- .;.'.1.... L.-.

" ViL';UI.l.?1' 1].

..f' .. .....il l'.. .u ".1 1 1

1. -. 1 .............., ..r .......... .. . ..£'...... inc amt. .1 Luz: pmpuac U1 yuyuicui. 1 uuuu. ii and jurisdiction, as well as the applicability of the Ielevanl. provisions of 'the Act'. The reasons which had weighed with the trial Cou1'L while passing order on IA \/ ./r' H:

ﬂh

-.- . . g ..

No.5 date ' .9.:'Z{'Jt"J3, in my view, ca11no'L judicata, to the petitioner. On the date dismissed, pel.il;io11e1' had 11oLv--ieveii I3?_led,4u'iiis "w1:~§.Lun: V' slaLe1neut. After the w1it.t.en sLaLeixie1--i_Li'ivas'*,!ile«i1, nu. ' "our. iias ﬂamed issues, by ~.:;1:;.1,i.*.a1iu !..,iis--., ssu; 1'-'.-:gr--I...1L.ng jL1I'isdicLion and va1L1a!:i.o11 1b1*"i31e_:'purpose oi"'eoii1'Li't:e. in View of the provisions (:<J1.1'Lsii1iei15i1i._01'dei"»__ 14 Rule 1, the trial Court w:as'a1_io-L justilied to l'1'a1ne issue with iegarii Lo"'y£i1uaiioijg; _ oi'... ,U;1ev--.»'sL1iL for the purpose of material ~w.:'iLten slatelnent filed by the peLiti.oue1'11e1'ei1i,.i11 my View, an additional issue arises for "--z,:o1'isideialjoi1 1.5., "" Wlieﬂiei' the piaililiff has properly italief in the suit for the purpose of court. Fee ' II I I' ' ' "*' -e co'"'., 133 is Under Rule 5 of Order 14 CPU, the court has ' -.1Viee.1.i5 vested with the jurisdiciioii to amend the issues or V» ....ﬁ'H111t: additional issues, which may be necessary for iiieti 1' in controversy between the parties. ml; I"nn.i 1.1 D 13:: L, 12 that the material issue with negard to valuaticn' pulp-use of jurisdictioll and court fee 11-ae' not}-E ﬂamed] raised, based on the pieadingsé i1_1.'jth'e Vwwliittelx ' el._-te1u,nt, it has acted illegally, "i1_1t'~sjis111ieeii1gv IA"

. . , . A': n. ..u-.-.' '.-a fl-nu. V. ';lI.'I" H ix ur-.~a,;e~--u . 3mmu.;ci_...u.; wee...» .1 the trial Court l111dt3l',R'L1_l(: 5=oI' fetid' win; Rule 1 tlxereof. IA No. 10, I'ai.*5ed by the petitioner iIl3~'l1i'&ﬁ t,"Wl'it'Lt:I§l .é;%tateﬁj.e11t__ meritoriouas and "eci.:i1,1g H1-' L115; Court to raise the 1 g 0 audiuoxlaivisezjie aéﬂ i1;s.iica'ied

9. Learnedv Cloﬁnselﬂ"j.1b1' the petitioner invited my i' _ ' I. 'n 'o - n 'A ' . -.

a1.'*i.i;.3(}Il to t}.ie_.t.e'.,1e1c11 oi tlne ...-curt 11: the case o! A:

--iiegde vs Rqiencira S. Reunicar repoxted in 364 to contend that, the issue regarding j payiueltit of court fee has to be tried as preli1nina1y iseue »ai11d4..et11at such compulsion is on account of the provision ""3 Th. qne-.~«'.-lion W1; 1.}; 1' the plejxgtiif is ;.\19 1-: p. -- _ entitled to pay only a fixed Court. fee or that he is iiabie to the Cij"i i"'e 0'1 the maﬁiet /' /-

sml '."

ﬂb Iii value of the property hue L0 be decided by Trial Court. The only question for the p1feeeI;t__ 5 _,_ is whether the Trial Court was jueliﬁed.-fiix 110$? + u o 9 v 0 '._l '_ "W" "W '="J..'t:emn' .'.ss=..'.e adIn1tted!;:.Vﬂ*.._mned. ._ L11 LL16 I.4.I.1.L¢ RS3 at the instance of the peLi1i011e1' l{1e1'ei1i'..e.11(iv..i'.» refusing to try the same .iss1'.1e'.-..__ In View of the Inamiatoxy :p1'()'-giéiioll *0!' -eu.b4 ' section (2) of Section ' -11 of the Kcaneteka Court and Suite "{el.uetieI1._ :5-.e.'.. ":--:.1itl has already been held b'y._111je Ccmlft in the decision cited the eaeeejef "U.maraidiJa'A'and Tlximmaiah, eupm; the ';i'1.'ieil~_"~€e'}(m:_>1't was not justiﬁed in refusing Ite t1*y'the.é.adf§liﬁena1 issue ' V, The:-«_:;;';;:-e, 'i1',ieT_'u.o1;"a ease L'ua'L 'Lhere was 110" "E11 tIi§::~exv1*i1;ten -statement regarcling the v;aiua.l.ieI:.;g .'.I_'l'1e1*e«.,iS~epeeiﬁe plea in the w1'it.Len statement regecrding 'ﬁhe valuation. when 9. speciﬁc plea in the written statement, even "*.;hi'e VCeL1J:ft 'in the said decision cited _; su_pral1aeV_1ieltl that nolmally having 1'eg,aJ'd to mandate-I*y«"provision of Section 11(2) of

5..iie«I*-Za"ﬂ_1ataka Fee.--5 em. Suite '.'eiue.!ie11 : "'L1e 1e-:;'e is a plea by the defendalii. in his " .__«Wi'it1:en'~._st'atement that the Court. fee paid is illsulﬁgsiellt, then that should be Lried as a preliixiinaxy issue as has been held so in rr--;..-...1..1...!.. ......u .. IIFI #9 L_§1uu.1 uuuu D buau, ohyfﬂ.

Simte the peliLio11e1'/2nd deI'e11da11'L has raised plea in the w1'i1.te11 slatelnellt that the court. fee paid is i11suJ.1ie1'en1. and in View of the .ﬁndi:ugs 1'ee01'ded ht31'CiIl above that :_-1.t_lt_1'._iu:_ei issue arises for eo11eide1'atio11, in View of the /.

14 pwvisions .;unLai11t:d in Section 11(2) of the Act-' the decision of this Court in the case. of Malathi and Others reported in:-1'988.(27): 20,' "

£11.. as-s.a,11;t: .:l;(_>L1_d be tried as p1t:1i11ii1_1aa"yA' iss1ie:... '~ . «.

10. For the foregoing tlisctnséitﬁj, it is" ht: Id' the Lzial Court has acted illcgailj/:A"i11 No.10 and has or Order 4: 1 %¢;_i:%'%<3i«:kig:;=k%14 -r - £1-1 N(}..'1.u, cu11sid¢;i;1£; flied in the suit. by the pcLiliui;_¢1' --_ Itzquircd L0 be allowed by di1'ccti11:$ fralne additional is:-sues as Siixce additiuzial issue {:13 inz.LcaL.-zd .9...-eve is wVii.1L1Vfﬂ:gaJ*d "'i0_ the fact wheL'l1e1' the couI"L fee paid is sufIi«:ie1'1i".TQ1'3101., in View of the sLat.uLo1'y compulsion u11ti4é:1f.SVa;b';aeuLio11 (2) of Stautiun 11 01' the Act, the same x~:xi_';:'L.s1_i ht: t._.1fi_cd as pmkilniuary issue. .. 1. With 1't:ga1°d to the plea ol'ju1'isdiclio11 is collct-:1'11cd, in View of alm-:nd1nc11t. to the Kalnauaka Civil Court Act

-

A n .m--.--.- _...

ur.1..e1'amcnI.ling Am, the trial Gm 1!; 11.5 g,i_._jL.11i:sdicLiun Lo uy the suit in qucsijoll. Henct.-:, issuﬁ with i'e"ai"d \L F:

U1! pecuniary julisdictioil of 1116 lriai Ctuuri Lo c11Leivié§fi1;"'*§j1c T suitdoes not arise for considtzralziou. In the 1'csui'L, wﬁi. pad in 1 j.iiiiow§'-;d_ impugutzd o1'r.ic1' is set aside'. IA"1'sI§")'.'*10 ii}.-:§iAVV 1 , Court. is allowed in part, di1'C(ftiI 1§§_l11B COIIEL Lo raise an additional issues as --i1"1:t-lic::i.Let11Vz;ii;2e)_vg~3 "and try the. same as pr-.:lim..:.'=*.1y is-.~:L1t:. Si1;Lv:--..L;;., yr:_1' 2001 mini (';ou1"L 'i§I'i:_c:'Lt::(i. in i.'1'1e" pI'Ciii1li1lH;Tj( issuca, wiLhi11 :;1%_pt:1'*&;)i;i €53', jitérisﬁjs 1390111 [.116 date 01' receipt of a cupy__ of ._1.hi;§ "{.sz':L1_Vé1'% _o1*%._:p1=pd11clio11 of a copy of this order 1 bv eiU1ei"'0f the j:ai*iie~a suit.' Nu costs.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court