IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3Is’r DAY or AUGUST u
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSITICEB.53:i5A’IIL_ A
REVIEW PETITION 354’/20’Id’ I,
WRIT pETIfr1oNI’No’.AA4299/20Io’-I
BETWEEN:
SriK.S.Chak_rapa11i, I
S/0 K.G.Sr1n§Va.ééiia11,, ‘ _
Aged about .-
R/a. Kennamangala ‘\_ffl1age;
Kasab;:1″I**IOi3]j:;i’
Devar1’£Iha_I}i “ram; ‘— 5621,10, I
Bangaldre Rural PETITIONER
[By Sr: sum S’.R.::I0, Acm
._.1’V.’ _ Sr; K;»Go\fi~;1djaraj an,
. “:3./’0 Iate~.H;T;G.Keshavan,
AAged.~abt);’:IIt 48 years,
R2/a”HV0saha1li Village,
VI_I1’p.1,:I~a I~IobII,
.. A ‘D-..evanahaHiTa1uk — 562 110,
A’ ” -Bangalore Rural District.
A Sri H.K.SriniVasan,
S/0 iate H.G.KeshaVan,
Aged about 45 years,
R/a H.V.Ver1kateshwara Nilaya,
Chikkaballapur Town 81
District — 562 101.
Sr: H.K.Har1shkumar,
S/o late H.G.KeshaVana,
Aged about 43 years,
R/a No.299, 11 Type Flats,
BEML Nagar, Bangarpet raluk, ‘
K.G.F. — 563 117,
Koiar District.
Smt.Ramarnar1i, A .
W/o Padmanabachearx. _
Aged about 48 yearsf ‘
R/a. No.59/A, Vallabhanagar,
Konankunte:Cross;,’ V
Kanakapura ;f:y4.EaV1:1.
Bangalore’¥_~._62v;7:–__’ V
Smt’.’Sr1deif1, .. _
W/Zo late M«u_rthy, .
Aged. about .45 , . _
Paramasam uh dram , h’ ‘–
KuppaIIi”Ta1L1}gf.;–. ”
Chlttoor DI’S1;_I’1Ct,
.Pradesh—-.——~ ”
A – V Sr1_ = Reddy,
_ /0 “V.er1;kaft_’a”‘Reddy.
Aged aboiqf 52 years,
R/at.–__’No. 6, 18* Cross,
Sanjayarl agar,
.. Bangalore — 84.
S3fit,.Asha Mumr,
W/0 Altha Basha,
” Aged about 45 years,
R/at Leelavathi Extension,
Near Kasturi Bai School,
Maddur Town ~ 571 428,
Mandya District.
8. Sri Kishore Kumar,
S/o Mangilal,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at No. 19, HI Cross,
Gandhi Nagar,
Bangalore — 09.
This review petition is filed under “Order 4? Rule 1
CPC praying for review of the “Qrder.._dated”12”.O3.2010
passed in W.P.4299/2;–QlfO on the filevviofitghe Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka, Bangaiorej
This revievvfpetition c,dmin,g for orders this
day, the C0urt_de’i’ive1’~ed the fo}i.lojwirig:
“”” H en
I. In this review’ ‘petiti’o–r1,’ petitioner is seeking review
of the Feeorder’ C 12.04.2010 passed in
V w.p .i§:¢.4.299/’2Ae.i:o. _:
_2′.V’ under review, this Court while setting
aside passed by the trial Court issued a
3′””‘~,_V”direction. the trial Court to decide the issue regarding
A rs1ifiir:iency of Court fee first and thereafter proceed in
it .a.ocordance with law in the matter. The trial Court had
“Vvpassed an order on the application filed by the
it
defendants, holding that the prayer made in the
application to treat the issue regarding sufficierufy;
Court fee paid wili be heard at the tithe
arguments. In Vi€W of the plea taken. ‘by-jthdeii
in the written statement that
valued and Court fee paid’«vxfir’a.s insu.fficierit,x’»an”‘issue V
.V -‘ I’ LT””
regarding sufficiency V of.’ the ‘Court fee. ‘paid Vwasrrraisedfirs
the same was not taken up prelfiniriiary issuejfiae
defendants ‘;_ia*e*e_ i_na<ie such -an _ja.ppIi§:ation requesting
the Court to it._.pi–'e.1igminary issue and pass an
order Von"VCti1.eC:j:sarC15fe.' thiewtriai Court rejected the
said was filed by the
deferidantsf' 'V
.31' " after Considering the provisions
coritgainediuguder Section 11(2) of the Karnataka Court
3"*'<«.__V"'fees and__CCSuits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'),
it iollouring the judgment rendered by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of VEERAGOUDA AND
V' OTHERS Vs SHANTHAKUMAR @ SIMNTAPPAGOWDA « ILR
if
2009 KAR 887 has set aside the order of the triai__.Court
holding that the provision mandate that if –ai'i:.f'i«sgs'ue
regarding the Court fee is raised, the said
decided before recording the eviderice on _other issues.'
Accordingly, a direction came
Court to decide the issue ofid
Court fee first and zthereaftex't_:p.ro'eeed in'"'a'Ccordance
with law.
4. Learned’ for the review
petitionervs’L1b{iriits’ V11_[2} and 11(5) of the
Act aiong ge;>tp:1a.nation appended thereto are
read togettier,’ give an indication
thatjthere is V.no.:s_u’ch mandate for the Court below to
regarding the sufficiency of the Court
fee’ paid ‘befoiferecording evidence. He therefore submits
g thatiithernatter requires re–exan1ination.
‘ C it I am unable to accept the contention urged by the
learned counsel for the petitioner as the order under
Er
6
review is in conformity with the provisions contained
under Section 11(2) of the Act and the division bench
decision rendered by this Court in the ease of
VEERAGOUDA AND OTHERS Vs SHANTE-IAKU§’/I’AR@
SHANTAPPAGOWDA – ILR 2009 KAR 337. Therefore.i..:io’__cajse’
is made out for exercising the power of _1je_V_iew; -.AHence;*’
the review petition is dismissed.
cvi. Nos. 13672/2010 am 13e7i3,/2o1Vo–‘A@fi-é ‘§;1se’:’iVo
dismissed.
VP