IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JULY , 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT W.P.No.49233/2016 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN SMT MOHAN BAI W/O. LATE M. GANESH LAL AGED 72 YEARS, NO.26/1, GANESH NILAYA, 5TH MAIN, M.B. COLONY, YESHWANTHAPUR, BANGALORE-22 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.VISWANATH SABARAD, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI.R.SADASHIVA REDDY S/O. LATE L.RAMA REDDY, AGED 59 YEARS, NO.938, 1ST FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, K.N.EXTENSION, YESHWANTHAPURA, BANGALORE-560022 2. SMT. RAMAKKA W/O. LATE L.RAMA REDDY, AGED 82 YEARS, 3. SRI.CHANDRAPPA REDDY S/O. LATE L. RAMA REDDY, AGED 53 YEARS, NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/O. NO.938, 4TH CROSS, K.N.EXTENSION, YESHWANTHAPURA, BANGALORE – 22 4. SMT. R. SHASHIKALA W/O. LAKSHMIAH, AGED 58 YEARS, NO.9, SP 35, 3RD MAIN ROAD, HBR 2ND STAGE, BDA L.R.BANDE, BANGALORE -560 037 5. SMT. PUSHPALATHA W/O. R. UMESH, AGED 45 YEARS, 6. SRI.U.NAVEEN S/O. R. UMESH, AGED 24 YEARS, 7. SRI.U.KARTHIK S/O. R. UMESH, AGED 21 YEARS, NO.5, 6, 7 ARE R/O NO.59/3, 2ND FLOOR, 1ST B-CROSS, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE – 54 8. SMT. BHARATHI W/O. LATE JAGADISH REDDY, AGED 38 YEARS, NO.22, 5TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE – 54 9. SMT. ROOPA W/O. R. VENKATAREDDY, AGED 45 YEARS, 10. SRI. TARUN S/O. R. VENKATESH REDDY, AGED 21 YEARS, 11. SRI. VARUN S/O. R. VENKATESH REDDY, S/O. R. 19 YEARS, NO.9, 10, 11 ARE ALL R/O NO.20, 2ND CROSS, SBM COLONY, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE – 54 12. SMT. LATHA V. REDDY W/O. K. VENKATESH REDDY AGED 40 YEARS, R/O. NO.1429, 8TH CROSS, 13TH MAIN, BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-76 13. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. SRINIVASA BABU AGED 38 YEARS, R/O. BEHIND KESHAVA THEATRE, LCR SCHOOL ROAD, YESHWANTHAPURA, BANGALORE -22 14. SMT. SUVARNAMMA W/O. LATE LAKSHMI NARAYANA REDDY, AGED 52 YEARS, 15. SRI. SOMESH S/O. LATE LAKSHMI NARAYANA REDDY, AGED 30 YEARS, 16. SRI. L. AMARESH S/O. LATE LAKSHMI NARAYANA REDDY, AGED 28 YEARS, 17. SMT. SWETHA D/O. LATE LAKSHMI NARAYANA REDDY, AGED 52 YEARS, NO.14, 15, 16, 17 ARE ALL R/O. KEERTHI ROYAL APARTMENTS, NEAR RAMAMURTHYNAGAR FLY OVER, BANASVADI, BANGALORE-43 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.H.THAMMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 V/O/D 21/09/2016 NOTICE TO R-2 TO R-17 DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.08.2016 PASSED ON I.A.15 IN O.S.NO.4275/06 ON THE FILE OF THE 25TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE AT ANNEX-J.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The short grievance of the petitioner is against the impugned order dated 17.08.2016 made by the learned XXV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in rejecting petitioner’s application in I.A.No.15 filed under Order XIV Rule 2(2) r/w Sec.151 of CPC, 1908 for framing a preliminary issue as to suit valuation for the purpose of court fee. The respondent no.1 having entered appearance through his counsel opposes the writ petition.
2. The question raised in this petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of VENKATESH R.DESAI vs. SMT. PUSHPA HOSMANI, ILR 2018 KAR 5095. At paragraph 35 it is observed as under:
“In fact, the principles which we have indicated above had been applied, though without stating in specific terms, by the other Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nanjamma (supra), when it was held that the plaint averment, of the property being in joint possession, was sufficient to bring the valuation of the suit within the ambit of Section 35 (2) of the Act of 1958; and taking of any evidence at the preliminary stage for the purpose of court fees would be of no effect or consequence. The same principle was applied in the case of LB reference in W.P.No.8087/2018 Renuka Manghnani (supra) too. The other decisions by the learned Judges sitting singly, which have essentially been rendered by following the decision in Veeragouda's case, cannot be approved”.
3. The court below has at para 12 of its impugned order has held that the said issue shall be adjudicated along with other issues in the suit. Therefore it is not that petitioner is remedy less; he has only to wait till the right stage is attained by the suit, for taking up the issue raised by him.
Writ petition is disposed off, all contentions of the parties having been kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE RU