IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO.35139/2013 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
ANATHA SEVASHRAMA TRUST REP. BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER RAGHAVENDRA PATIL S/O B.S.PATIL AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT MALLADIHALLY VILLAGE RAMAGIRI HOBLI HOLALKERE TALUK – 577 526 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. KUMARAPPA S/O NARAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT BASAPURA VILLAGE RAMAGIRI HOBLI HOLALKERE TALUK – 577 526 2. JYOTHI D/O ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT BASAPURA VILLAGE RAMAGIRI HOBLI HOLALKERE TALUK – 577 526 3. LALITH KUMAR S/O ONKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT BASAPURA VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK – 577 526 4. VEDAMURTHY S/O MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT BASAPURA VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK – 577 526 5. MURIGEPPARA NARAPPA S/O LATE MURIGEPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT R.NULENUR VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK – 577 526 6. KADAJJI CHANDAPPA S/O KADAJJI RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT R.NULENUR VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK -577 526 7. RANGASWAMY S/O TALAVARA GIRIJAMMA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT R.NULENUR VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK – 577 526 8. RAJAPPA S/O LATE VEERAPPA SHEKHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT T.NULENUR VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK – 577 526 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI N.D.ONKARAPPA & SRI SHIVALINGA RAJU, ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R8) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.07.2013 (ANNEXURE-E) PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HOLALKERE IN O.S.NO.14/2011.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. This writ petition is by the plaintiff and is directed against an interlocutory order dated 22.07.2013 whereby the trial Court has directed the petitioner to file a fresh valuation slip and to pay Court fee on Rs.10,00,000/- as per the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the record.
3. The impugned order lacks clarity. The trial Court has not referred to any particular provision of law under which the suit requires to be valued and why it requires to be valued at Rs.10,00,000/-. In the absence of any proper reasoning in that behalf, the impugned order dated 22.07.2013 is unsustainable in law and it is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial Court for reconsideration in accordance with law. All contentions of both the parties are kept open.
Petition disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE LB