IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10"' DAY OF NOVEMBER,
BEFORE A' _ I
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N._\[ENUG§).i5/?§"LIr;\..'.yf,%VC5'\r'\I'_E)A"IEu
WRIT PETITION NO.957§/201'1_:U~
BETWEEN:
B.S. Narendra Kumar
S/0. B.J.Surendra Kumar,
Aged about 56 years, ' --_ , ..
Residing at Mahaveera Road,
Beiiur Town, ' - '
Nagamangafa Taiuig.
PETITIONER
(By Sri Jaga:c1§sh4_'D-.._H'i«_re'm_;z.t_h;~~_Ady.')._
. . . . 'I
1 . Vi maia ri'a4'thasyyEIrT:Iy_"FE;:J'st
Board Committs-e;' .Beiu"r_;.
Represen"'ced'IbyVVr'v?:s P_res'ident
Sri;B'.H..MahabaVIaiah.V
.2'; _Sri .B.EH:;AMai1.aVbaiaiah,
' ,.S)'o.._ M.,»HIo,rmy.ai'ah,
'Aged 'ab'o.;It years.
3. S.'a\l.Sr_§'Sfu;r£:a Rajaiah,
S/o. Nemi Rajaiah,
Aged about 69 years.
A --..RajaAf<eerthi,
S;/o. Dhanakeerthaiah,
....Aged about 64 years.
[U
5. B.V.Nagesh,
S/0. Vasantharajaiah,
Aged about 62 years.
6. i:3.J.Chandranathaiah,
S/0. Jinadattarajaiah,
Aged about 69 years.
Aii are residing at Beiiur Town,°g A it
Nagamangaia Taiu . V . "
(By Sri Jwaia Kumar, Adv. for'V'F1<'3._V'Vto R6) _V
This writ petition? isfiiedflflunderArticles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of Inciia, pratyéivng 'tovguash or set aside
the order in O.S.No.74/2003' t;he"iiie'*~ojr'---- the Civii Judge,
This p'eti't»io,n""Co--i_n:in'g'j'.-on'for pr.ei'i'rninary hearing in 'B'
group this day,"»ttieVCoiJ_»r=t i_Tiade___the.?foiiowing:
,_j,oRoER
Respondents. haye. o.s.No.74/2oo3 in the Court
of Ciy~i:.._1gdge ‘{_}r.””DivVri.,) at Nagamangaia, against the
dpetivtvioneiuforthe relief of recovery of possession, mesne
‘p~roxfi._t-sAan:df–ovtiié’rvtfonsequentiai reliefs. The petitioner has
filed his \c_z”r’it.tAe’n statement. Based on the pleadings, the
courtwhhas raised the issues. Issue No.5 is with regard
.’…..i2j’Es’i'{ohN’i3ii3NTs it
4. The Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 196-4 was
amended. The Amendment Act came into force”‘wi’th.4’elffe,ct
from 28.08.2007. In section 17 of the Act,”~«’.f:or.jtrh.et’ «.«ioi}i,sV’
“fifty thousand rupees” the words”‘*’-five ‘.l&al<,h .Aru'p_ees"l"VVwas
substituted. It was made cleardapsi'-.pelr Section *5"
Amendment Act that, the same-"~sphall .not affect Vthewloending A
cases. Section 5 of the Amen-dmentlfitctt reads"as"Vfollows:
"N0tW1'thstar1d1'ngu"any-thing;V:contaiVi1ing'_in this Act, all
suits, appeals Qr~«v.re:vis1'on~.,,_and._lo'ther proceedings
COfln6Ct3E:d"4.ljld'€r€\l€1itl1h the High Court,
District 'of_ Judge (Senior Dixdsion),
Civil nnidot t:):ivisi«o.n)_ Small Causes Court,
date conimencement of this Act shall be
contin'ued.arid:i" d_i'sposed* of by the respective courts in
Whichppthey lai*e'Apen,ding as if the amendment made
tinder this Actlhas not been made".
said Section has not been noticed by the
triait-l’__cou’i’tA;”_~v..__Asa result, it has committed error and
it _ illegality hollding that, it has jurisdiction to try the suit.
,__pecu”niary jurisdiction of the trial court is with
..refer’ence to the date on which the suit was instituted. As
d’:’_”on—-‘the date of filing of the suit, the value of the suit
\s
‘X’!
property being Rs.86,500/–,
the trial
court.{“h_ad no
pecuniaryjurisdiction to entertain the suit. ‘
6. In the circumstances, the o
court is erroneous. Since it dr
the suit property at Rs.86,5OO/–i,A:’it iouight to.”.ha’ve di’recte:d’a.
return of the piaint for Vpresentatioiw._V_b’efore”K:the court
having jurisdiction to ,e_ntert
ain the suit i.e.,
reference
to the date of fiiing of it’rie,%suir…7
impugned hcficziing that the triai court
has pecuniair 1′ l it it in
The trial court to pass the
Sd/A
Ksj —
Cffthe i»t’ria.i>4°»
:’te’r’rn.’n_e’d_ the of i’