Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19480
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J
N. GOVARDHAN – Appellant
Versus
NAGABAASI REDDY – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.48356 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. ANIL KUMAR SHETTY
For the Respondents: SHRUTHI M.
H.V. HARISH
S. SRIKANTH
FELIX
The Court emphasized the necessity of inherent powers to rectify judicial errors and ensure fair opportunities for compliance with procedural requirements.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151, Order VII Rule 11 - Writ petition seeking to recall a prior order regarding valuation slip not found in records - Trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint without considering prior conclusion on correctness of court fee - Inherent powers to correct orders applicable. (Paras 2-6)
(B) Court’s requirement for maintaining court fees and process in procedural laws - Adequate opportunity must be given to parties to comply with procedural mandates before rejecting any pleadings. (Paras 3-6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction and, later amended it for relief of declaration. Defendants raised court fee issues leading to preliminary issues being treated. The trial Court ultimately directed filing of fresh valuation slip noting correctness of court fees paid by the petitioner. (Paras 2-3)
Findings of Court:
The Court clarified that the trial Court had previously ruled the petitioner’s court fee as correct and directed consideration of the pending application to recall prior dismissals due to missing documentation. (Paras 6-7)
Issues: Key issues revolved around the validity of the trial Court’s conclusions on court fees and proper procedural conduct. (Para 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found error in the trial Court’s dismissal based solely on documentation failure, emphasizing the need for inherent powers to rectify judicial oversight and provide fair opportunity for compliance. (Para 6)
Result: Writ petition allowed, and the trial Court directed to reconsider the application on its merits.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. relief sought to direct trial court to consider recall application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petition seeks to rectify error in court order on valuation slip. (Para 3) |
| 3. court highlights need for procedural fairness. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 4. initial suit valued appropriately by the trial court. (Para 5) |
| 5. writ petition allowed; procedural errors to be rectified. (Para 7) |
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:-
"WHEREFORE, the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to-
(a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other like writ/writs, thereby direct the court below to consider the application filed under section 151 of CPC to recall the order vide Annexure-F, in O.S.No.16419/2006 on the file of 28th ACC & SJ., Bangalore in accordance with the records of the proceedings and also court office records.
(b) to pass an Order as to costs of the Writ Petition with such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case."
2. Sri.S.Anil Kumar Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the suit initially for permanent injunction, later it was amended and sought for the relief of declaration and after amendment the necessary Court fee was paid. However, the defendants in the suit raised the objection with regard to payment of Court fee.
The trial Court considered the said objection and treated the Court fee as a preliminary issue and recorded its finding on preliminary issue on 16.04.2018. The trial Court rejected the contention of the defendants and held that the valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court fee by the plaintiff is correct. In the said order, the trial Court has directed the petitioner- plaintiff to file fresh valuation slip showing valuation of all the reliefs and the Court fee paid on the said reliefs in the prescribed format as per the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice. It is submitted that the said suit was represented by a different counsel earlier and later, he entered appearance. It is also submitted that the earlier counsel has filed valuation slip indicating the Court fee paid to the relief sought in the plaint. However, the said valuation slip was not found in the record. Hence, they have filed an application for securing the order sheet of the trial Court. However, the order sheet was also not available, which has been explained in the application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (CPC). It is submitted that the trial Court without considering any of the aspects, has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not corrected the valuation slip as per the order dated
16.04.2018 and by referring to order VII Rule 11 (b) and (c) of CPC rejected the plaint. It is contended that the non-filing of valuation slip by the petitioner would not fall under Order VII Rule 11 (b) and (c) of CPC. Hence, he has moved an application under Section 151 of CPC before the trial Court to correct its error by exercising inherent power. However, the trial Court has not considered the said application and kept the matter pending. Hence, the present petition is filed seeking direction to the trial Court to consider the said application.
3. Per contra, Smt.Shruthi.M, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.H.V.Harish for respondent No.5 and Sri.Felix, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.S.Srikanth for respondent No.2 supports the order of the trial Court. It is submitted that the trial Court has provided sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to produce valuation slip to establish that the petitioner has paid the correct Court fee on the prayer sought in the plaint. In the absence of production of the valuation slip, the trial Court has rightly rejected the plaint, which does not call for interference. It is also submitted that the application filed by the petitioner at Annexure-'F' seeking to recall the order dated 05.06.2018 is not maintainable, as the suit is dismissed. The petit
