IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAI,0i§E
DATED TI-Hs THE 261" my OF JUNE 2o0g.,.A % ; I '
BEFORE
THE HCIN'BLE MR. JUSTICE Ln %
cup No.8E$7fl{)():57.
BETWEEN:
Sri. Siddalingappa @ 'K_;iniap;}a, . ~
S/0. Late Sri. Siddalingappa * =
Aged about 82 years, ._
Rfo. Dyavapaim; Village, I
Vimpa1b3i,, . V
Chazmapahia b _ V.
Bangajcqre 3 '-
. . . Petiticner.
(By Adv.)
" ._ Sfo,« ~v_S_ha;'1ihavcerappa,
.?e14ajor,_ . " '
R/ah No'.337a, 'Mahcshwari Niiaya'
1" Cross, Next to Ganesha Temple Road,
% ' Eviahalalcshmi Layout,
2 A ' V ' 'fiaiigalwe - 86.
. . . Respondent.
1 play Sri.N.P. Kallesh Gowda, Adv.)
dated
This OR!’ is filed under Section 115 of CPC against the exder
20.9.2005 passed on LA. in 0.S.N0.22f20{)3 on the file of the
,3-
the said date, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintifi’ therein
paid deficit court fee of Rs.4,250/~ and thereby complied’
office objections. This being sea, rejection of the M
Vii Rule Iii c )of CPU on the ground fliagflae =
a hang time for payment of deficit caurt fee te”fi,:_e
facts and without jurisdiction and a;*rii_$;i39h t}ze’iniipngneii e§:§et.ce11not’» . L’
besustainediniaw. _
3. As could be seen rrrrrr rirr-.rrrarrrir;+rr,¢rr dated 4.3.2903 the
learned csrrl Judge’i2’&e«r.ei3sereea.1;herein that the defendant remained
absent despite ‘s:efiviee flierefore, the plaintiff was to
file an XV!!! Rule 4 of CPC and also pay the
iiciu:ty;:i13:siV the unregistered agreement by next date of
herrsrrg” ;re_,i1tr}:>2(ir:>3. Even ifit is assumed that as observed by the
.leatned r:rrrr.rrrgr in the order sheet dated 4.3.2003, are plaintiff
“make the payment of duty and penalty on the unregistered
it and themfore, the learned Civil Judge passed the
-iiiipugned order U/O V11 Rule i1( c ) cf CPC, fine impugned order
i cannot be sustained in law inasmuch as the question of payment of
(We
duty and penalty on the unregistered agreement on the
plainfiff relied upon would have arisen when the plaintiff _
get the said document admitted in evidenee but fat V.
earlier thereto. Therefore the impugneci:’».:erd!er.. ::in
total disregard to the relevant provieieias. of en_ci4~es,.snch% it: L’
cannot be sustained in law. .
4. The learned ceunsel fer ieepéondeiatfidefendant submittetl
that since the plaint~vcen;e*to 7 Rule 11( c ) of
CPC, the §§np11gne(i”VV<:sj*d:er, the plaint, cannot be revised
under Section l'l._5ef in "e:$§:rcise ef revisinnal powers inasmuch
..esA'such_»»'£§nVerder enail.haYe to be deemed to be a dame against
{:vhic1ta's:–._'l'his argument could have been accepted if the
the impugned order either on the
– 4af3plicafian* ef*:.the defendant under any of the clauses of Rule 11 of
or on the failure of the plaintiff to make good the
in the payment of court fee within the time granted by the
” Since the pi$nfi mrm to: pay any deficit court
year 2003, the learned Civil jtxdge shall dispose of the _
expeditiously as possible.
N(}*