IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.9887/2014(GM-CPC) BETWEEN 1. UMME FARAHA D/O AL-HAJ ABDUL JABBAR SAHEB AGED: 39 YEARS R/O NO.13, 13TH CROSS II MAIN, L.C. COLONY YESHWANTHPURA BANGALORE 560022 2. SRI ADIL AHMED J S/O AL-HAJ ABDUL JABBAR AGED: 46 YEARS R/O NO.13, 13TH CROSS II MAIN, L.C. COLONY YESHWANTHPURA BANGALORE - 560022 3. SRI SYED ASGAR S/O SYED AKBAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 4. SRI SYED KABEER HUSSAIN S/O SYED NOOR HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS BOTH NOS.3 AND 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.18, 4TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE -560 018.
5. SMT. SADATHUNNISSA W/O IMDAD PASHA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O KARNATAKA ENGINEERING WORKS, BAZAAR ROAD YELAHANKA, BANGALORE -64 6. SMT. SHATAJUNNISSA D/O HAJI WAZIR SAHEB AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O DOOR NO.15, III CROSS II MAIN, V.R. PURAM PALACE GUTTAHALLI BANGALORE – 560 003. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI HARISH T.S, ADVOCATE FOR KESVY & CO.,) AND 1. SRI NANJUNDASWAMY S/O LATE KARIBASAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 2. SRI K. GURUSWAMY S/O LATE R. KARIBASAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.1870 OLD NO.3, GOVINDAPURA ARABIC COLLEGE POST BANGALORE -45 3. SRI SHIVU S/O LATE BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.37, HARINES ROAD, PULKESHINAGAR, FRAZER TOWN, NEAR ASHOKA THEATRE, BANGALORE 560005 4. SRI SYED ALEEM S/O HAJI BASITH SAHEB AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.18, PEEMMIAHA BLOCK, II CROSS, J C NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 006, C/O KARNATAKA ENGINEERING WORKS, BAZAR ROAD, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 560 004 5. RUBY SUMITRA D/O LATE YESY REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O NO.18, SUMITRA NILAYA, MES COLONY, HAL, BANGALORE 560 017. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ADITHYA KUMAR.H.R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRAKASH RAO JADAV, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2, R3 IS DELETED V/O DT.20/06/2017) R4-PETITION DISMISSED R5 –SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.8.8.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED 5TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-13), BANGALORE CITY, IN OS.NO.5427/2007 OF THE CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Plaintiffs 1 to 4, 7 and 8 in OS.No.5427/2007 on the file of V Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, have come up in this writ petition impugning the order dated 8.8.2013 passed on additional issue framed on 12.3.2012. The parties herein are referred to by their rank in the trial court.
2. Admittedly, the suit in OS.No.5427/2007 is filed for the relief of declaration that the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2006 passed in OS.No.6870/2004 is not binding on the plaintiffs, consequently for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from alienating, encumbering or creating charge on the suit schedule property. For the purpose of valuation, the said suit was valued at Rs.50/-. However, in the said suit when the defendants entered appearance they filed written statement, wherein they have taken objection to the Court Fee that is paid and sought that the same should be considered as a preliminary issue.
3. It is the objection raised by the defendants regarding Court Fee which was earlier decided by the Court of V Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, by his order dated 17.9.2012, which was subject matter of challenge before this Court in WP.No.48728/2012 (GM-CPC). The said writ petition came to be disposed of by order dated 25.4.2013 in setting aside the order dated 17.9.2012 and remanding the matter back to the trail court for fresh consideration more particularly, by looking into the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Satheedevi –vs- Prasanna & Another, reported in AIR 2010 SCW 3754, which is followed in another decision of this Court in the matter of Smt.Anandamma & Others –vs- Sharada Alias Munithayamma, reported in (2011) 1 KCCR 52. It is in the light of the direction issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier round of writ petition, the additional issue was heard afresh and the order impugned is passed by the trail court on 8.8.2013.
4. On going through the order impugned, it is clearly seen that there is no irregularity committed by the trail court in appreciating the issue which was considered as preliminary issue more particularly, the said order is passed following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, referred to supra.
Accordingly, this writ petition does not merit consideration and the same is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-