IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 45819 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT SAROJAMMA W/O SRI BHEEMAIAH, R/AT ATTUR VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJAY R ANEPPANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R B ANEPPANAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT.NARAYANAMMA D/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 2. SRI.VENKATASWAMY S/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 3. SMT.YELLAMMA D/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 4. SRI.MUNIRAJU S/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 5. SMT.MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 6. SMT.BALAMMA D/O LATE VENKATAPPA, W/O MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 7. SRI.A.N.KASHINATH S/O LATE NARASIMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT ATTUR VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 114 8. SRI.D.M.NAGARAJ S/O GOWDA MUNIYAPPA, AGED MAJOR, R/AT DASARAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 114 9. SRI.E.PRABHAKAR S/O E NARASARAJU, R/AT #20, 2ND MAIN, AECS LAYOUT, SANJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE-560 094.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R9; SRI. B ROOPESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R1, 2,3,4,6, 7 & R8 ARE SERVED;
V.C.O. DATED 08.01.2018; NOTICE TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 8.9.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL IN O.S.NO.424/2014 VIDE ANNEX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION DATED16.2.2016 FILED BY THIS PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VII RULE 10 OF CPC VIDE ANNEX-D.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner being the fourth defendant in a partition suit in O.S.No.424/2014 filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for laying a challenge to the order dated 08.09.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby his application filed under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC, 1908, for a direction to return the plaint to the respondent-plaintiffs has been rejected on a cost of Rs,1,000/-. The contesting respondents having entered appearance through their counsel, resist the writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the suit is for partition and separate possession of 5/6th share in the subject property which is worth several lakhs going by the 2014-15 Guideline Values fixed by the Government of Karnataka, copy whereof is at Annexure-E; the Court below is not justified not even referring to those documents merely because they are not spoken of in the Written Statement of the petitioner; lastly, the reasoning of the Court below offends the commonsense of any reasonable person and therefore, the same is liable to be invalidated. So arguing, he seeks allowing of the writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent – plaintiffs per contra submits that the impugned order is a product of exercise of discretion, the reasoning of the Court below cannot be faltered; ousting the jurisdiction of the Court is a serious matter when there is a strong presumption that Civil Court has jurisdiction. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
4. Having heard the leaned counsel for both the sides and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be set at naught and matter be remanded for consideration afresh because:
a) petitioner has specifically taken the contention as to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court at paragraph No.15; his application under Order VII Rule 10 is supported by a narrative affidavit dated 16.02.2016 wherein he has referred to the Guideline Values operated by the jurisdictional Sub-Registrars fixed under the Government Notifications issued under the provisions of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957; the Court below has not applied its mind by turning the pages nor it has made any exercise worth mentioning in this regard;
b) although the Court below specifically noted that the respondent-plaintiffs have not filed any objections to the subject application filed by the petitioner; but what turns out from this stand of the plaintiff has not been discussed by the Court; ordinarily when objection to pecuniary jurisdiction is taken, the Court below should consider the matter seriously, and this having not been done, there is an error apparent on the face of the record; and c) the observation of the Court below that these Guidelines are not for the suit period prima facie appears to be incorrect inasmuch as, on the top of the said document at Annexure-E, the period for which they are applicable is also mentioned; thus, there is a gross non-application of mind to the material borne out by record.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; the impugned order is set at naught; the matter is remitted back to the trial Court for consideration afresh, within a period of two months after hearing both the stake holders.
It is needless to mention that the trial of the suit shall be for the time being stalled, till after petitioner’s subject application is processed.
It is open to the Court below to call for the copies of the Guideline Values for the relevant year from the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar’s office also.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv