IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.137 OF 2019 BETWEEN Smt. Shobha, W/o. C.Channabasavaraju, Aged about 50 years, R/o. Panchanga Beedi, Chickpet, Tumkur-572101.
(By Sri. G.S.Venkat Subba Rao, Advocate) AND 1. Sri. C.K.Nagaraj, S/o. Kappanna, Aged about 62 years, R/o. Chandragiri.
Dodderi Hobli-572112 Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District.
2. Smt. Siddagangamma, W/o. Shivarudraiah, Aged about 74 years, R/o. Alenahalli-572137, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District.
3. Sri. Adivappa, S/o. Kappanna, Aged about 69 years, …Petitioner R/o. Chandragiri Dodderi Hobli-572112 Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District.
4. Sri. Manjunath, S/o. Late Mangala Gowramma, Aged about 44 years, R/o. Chikkanahalli, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District-572101.
5. Smt. Mangala Gowramma, W/o. Late Eshwarappa, Aged about 49 years, R/o. Dandinadibba Village, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District-572101.
6. Smt. Kavitha, D/o. Late Eshwarappa, W/o. Basavaraja, Aged about 33 years, R/o. Dandinadibba Village, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District-572101.
7. Sri. Manjunatha, S/o. Late Eshwarappa, Aged about 29 years, R/o. Dandinadibba Village, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District-572101.
8. Sri. Nataraj, S/o. Late Eshwarappa, Aged about 26 years, R/o. Dandinadibba Village, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District-572101.
9. Smt. Anasuyamma, W/o. Anandappa, D/o. Kappanna, Aged about 54 years, R/o. Rathnagiri, Madakasira Taluk, Ananthapura District, Andrapradesh-510051.
Sri. Bogarajaiah, S/o. Kappanna, Since dead by LRs.
10. Smt. Jagadamba, W/o. Late Bhogarajaiah, Aged about 49 years, 11. Kum. Thejaswini, D/o. Late Bhogarajaiah, Aged about 27 years, 12. Sri. Ravindra, S/o. Late Bhogarajaiah, Aged about 24 years, 13. Kum. Venutha, D/o. Late Bhogarajaiah, Aged about 23 years, R10 to R13 are R/o. Dandinadibba Village, Dodderi Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District-572101.
14. Sri. Mallikarjuna, S/o. Kappanna, Aged about 54 years, R/o. Chandragiri Village, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District-572101.
15. Smt. Geetha, D/o. Kappanna, W/o. Hanumantharayappa, Aged about 51 years, R/o. Konkal Village, Madakasira Taluk, Ananthapura District, Andrapradesh-510051.
16. Smt. Girija, D/o. Kappanna, W/o. Jagadesh, Aged about 49 years, R/o. Valase Village, Madakasira Taluk, Ananthapura District, Andrapradesh.
17. Smt. Shyamala, D/o. Kappanna, W/o. Shanthakumar, Aged about 47 years, R/o. Bharamasagara Village, Chitradurga Taluk & District-577501.
18. Sri. K.V.Guruprasad, S/o. G.Veerabhadraiah, Aged about 57 years, R/o. 10th Cross, Someshwara Extension, Tumkuru-572102.
19. Branch Manager, KSFC, Tumkur-572101.
20. General Manager, KSFC Head Office, No.1/1 Thimmaiah Road, Bengaluru-560052.
21. Smt. H.M.Vijayalakshmi, W/o. Sirasalmutta K.C., Aged about 59 years, R/o. No.89, 8th Main, 13th Cross, Wilson Garden, Bengaluru-560075.
22. Smt. H.M.Parvathamma, W/o. Ravikumar, Aged about 57 years, R/o. Jajpur Post, Parashurampura Hobli, Chillakere Taluk, Chitradurga District-577501.
23. Smt. T.S.Manjula, W/o. Rajkumar Aged about 49 years, R/o. Chandragiri Village, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District-572101.
(By Sri. Vivek S., Advocate for R1, …Respondents Notice to R2 to R23 is dispensed with vide order dated 20.03.2019) This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC, against the order dated 14.01.2019 passed on I.A.No.XX in O.S.No.477/2010 on the file of the C/C Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri, rejecting the I.A.No.XX filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, praying to return the plaint.
This Civil Revision Petition coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER Heard the petitioner’s counsel and counsel for respondent No.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.1.2019 in O.S.477/2010 on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Madhugiri. The petitioner being the defendant in the suit made an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. The necessary facts are that when the suit was earlier filed for partition, the plaintiff valued his share for less than Rs.5 Lakhs and filed it in the court of Civil Judge which had the pecuniary jurisdiction to try and dispose of the suit. Subsequently, the plaintiff amended the plaint and included certain other immovable properties, but he did not file a fresh valuation slip. During the cross- examination of PW1, the defendant was able to elicit from him that the total value of all the properties including those added after amending the plaint properties that were subject matter of the suit after amendment of the suit exceeded Rs.5 Lakhs and therefore the defendant made an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The trial court has rejected the application.
2. After effecting amendment to the plaint by including certain other immovable properties, the plaintiff ought to have furnished fresh valuation slip. It appears that the plaintiff did not file valuation slip. If it is elicited from PW1 that the valuation exceeds Rs.5,00,000/-, hence the Court of Civil Judge loses its pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. This being the case, it is a case for return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC. The plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In this view the trial court has come to a right conclusion, but at the same time the plaintiff has an obligation to furnish the fresh valuation slip and if the valuation exceeds Rs.5 Lakhs, he has to take back the plaint from the Court of Civil Judge at Madhugiri and re-present the plaint in the Court of Senior Civil Judge. Now, the counsel for the first respondent submits that he will file an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and take back the plaint for being re-presented in the Court of Senior Civil Judge. For these reasons, this revision does not survive, and the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Ckl