##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6761

WP No. 29959 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO. 29959 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. RAMAKKA

W/O AVULAPPA

AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS

REPRESENTED BY HER GPA

H A SAMPATH KUMAR

S/O AVALAPPA

AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS

R/A HOSAHUDYA VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLIL

CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT 562101

2. SMT GAYTHRI

W/O H A SAMPATH KUMAR

AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS

R/A RESIDING AT HOSAHUDYA VILLAGE

NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK

AND DISTRICT 562101

…PETITIONERS

Digitally signed

by CHANDANA (BY SRI. A.LOURDU MARIYAPPA.,ADVOCATE)

B M

Location: High

Court of AND:

Karnataka

1. SMT. DILSHAD BEGUM

D/ODIVAN SAB

AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS

R/A SHANTHINAGAR

SIDLAGHATTA TOWN AND TALUK

CHIKKABALLPURA DISTRICT 562105

2. SMT SHAMSHAD BEGUM

W/O RAHAMATHULLA

AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6761

WP No. 29959 of 2025

HC-KAR

3. SMT ERASHAD BEGUM

W/O ZAVEED PASHA

AGE ABOUT 34 YEARS

BOTH R2 & R3 ARE

R/A RAHAMATHNAGAR

SIDLAGHATTA TOWN AND TALUK 56105

CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SOWMYASHREE G. FOR;

SRI. R V SRINIVASA REDDY.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOCALL FOR THE

RECORDS IN OS NO. 669/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE

LEARNED SECONDE ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC

AT CHIKKABALLAPURACONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE

HONBLE II ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC

CHIKKABALLPURA IN OS NO. 669/2023 DTD 2.07.2025 AT ANX-

K ON APPLICATION IA UNDER SECTION OF 11 OF

KARANTAKA COURT FEE ANDSUIT VALUATION ACT 1958

AND R/W UNDER ORDER 14 RULE 5 OF CPC AGAINST THE

PETITIONER HEREIN AND ALLOW THIS WP AND FURTHER

DIRECT THE COURT BELOW TO FRAME THE ISSUE NO. 4 AS

PRELIMINARY ISSUE IN OS NO. 669/2023.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS

UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the defendants in O.S.No.669/2023 is

directed against the impugned order dated 02.07.2025, whereby

the application filed by the petitioners-defendants under Order XIV

Rule 5 CPC to treat the issue regarding valuation and court fee as

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6761

WP No. 29959 of 2025

HC-KAR

a preliminary issue was rejected by the Trial Court by holding as

under:

“ORDERS ON I.A FILED UNDER ORDER 14 RULE 5 OF CPC

The defendants have filed the application to consider

the Issue No.4 at the outset as preliminary issue, before

recording evidence on the merits of the matter.

2. The plaintiffs have opposed the same.

3. Heard both sides and perused the pleadings and

materials placed on record.

4. The points that arises for consideration are as

follows:

1. Whether valid grounds are made out to

try the issue No.4 as preliminary issue?

2. What order?

5. The findings on the above points are as follows:

Point No.1: In the Negative.

Point No.2 : As per the final order,

for the following:

R E A S O N S

6. Point No.1:- The Issue No.4 reads as follows:

“Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff is

insufficient?”

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6761

WP No. 29959 of 2025

HC-KAR

7. This issue is now sought to be tried as preliminary

issue. The mandate under Sec.11(2) of KSF & SV Act

stipulates that in issue regarding Court fee and jurisdiction

shall be tried as preliminary issue. However, it is necessary

to try the said issue in the present set of facts as prayed for,

has to be considered with reference to the purpose

underlying in the aforementioned mandate. The Court fee

payable being one of the sources of revenue to the public

exchequer, insufficient Court fee paid being a ground for

rejection of plaint, the mandate under Sec.11 is generally

followed. However, the peculiar set of facts and

circumstances involved herein has to be considered instead

of generalizing the principle underlying Sec.11 supra.

8. This is a suit for declaration and permanent

injunction filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants in

respect of the land earing Sy No.15/1 property. They have

clearly pleaded that he plaintiffs are absolute owners and in

pos