IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.1703 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) AND WRIT PETITION NO.26129 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI M. KHANDE RAO S/O M.N.MYLARI RAO AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS TAILOR R/O. MARUTHI COMPLEX H. SIDDAIAH ROAD SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201 (BY SRI. ONKAR K.B., ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI MANJE GOWDA S/O. NANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O. NAVULE BASAVAPURA VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DIST. – 577 301 (BY SRI P.N.HARISH, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2015 MADE IN R.A.NO.160/2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) & JMFC, AT SHIVAMOGGA, IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND IN CONSEQUENCE TO RESTORE THE R.A.NO.160/2015 AT ITS ORIGINAL STAGE: ANNEXURE ‘A’ ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the appellant in R.A.No.160/2013 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 18.03.2015, a copy whereof is at Annexure ‘A’ whereby, the learned Second Additional Senior Civil Judge, Shivamogga having held that the appeal was not properly valued and court fee was not duly paid has later dismissed the appeal.
2. After service of notice, respondent / plaintiff has entered appearance though his counsel and opposes the writ petitions.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the writ papers, the impugned order cannot be faulted inasmuch as admittedly the petitioner has paid the court fee on the amount claimed in the plaint which is insufficient. Explanation 3 to Section 49 of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1958, requires that the appeal is to be valued in the case of money decree which shall include the interest that accrued during the pendency of the suit till the date of decree.
In view of the above, writ petitions are dismissed.
It is needless to mention that if and when the dispute is amicably settled before the Lok Adalath, ordinarily the parties are entitled for the refund of court fee subject to all just exceptions and this order shall not be construed repugnant to the same.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Nvj