The court reaffirmed that proper valuation and court fee payment procedures must be adhered to strictly in civil suits.

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the defendant in O.S. No.95/2015 is directed against the impugned order passed on the valuation slip filed by the respondent/plaintiff in the suit on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada, whereby the Trial Court accepted the valuation slip of the respondent/plaintiff by holding as under:

“ORDER ON VALUATION SLIP

The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession of encroached portion of property by the defendant and for mandatory injunction directing him to demolish and remove the alleged illegal construction of chajja, pillars, windows, parapet walls and commercial building structures and consequently for perpetual injunction.

2. On perusal of valuation slip furnished by the plaintiff at the time of filing the suit reveals that, he has calculated the suit U/s 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 at a sum of Rs.6,40,000/- and paid Court fee of Rs.21,675/-. In response to the summons, the defendant appeared before the court and represented through his counsel and filed written statement. On the basis of pleadings of the parties issues were also framed. In the written statement, the defendant did not rise his objection about the valuation of suit and also Court fee paid by the plaintiff. When the case was posted for further examination- in-chief of PW1, the defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(b) of CPC-IA No.1 and prayed for rejection of plaint on the ground that, sufficient court fee was not paid. The plaintiff filed his objection to the application and after having heard the parties, said application came to be rejected vide order dated 11.09.2017. However, the plaintiff was directed to file a fresh valuation slip and pay court fee on the market value of the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit.

3. As per the directions of this Court, the plaintiff paid deficit court fee and filed a fresh valuation slip on 02.02.2018. The defendant had filed objections to the fresh valuation slip and also produced a market value certificate dated 28.07.2017 received from the office of the Sub- Registrar, Pavagada. On the basis of said certificate, the fresh valuation slip dated 02.02.2018 filed by the plaintiff came to be rejected vide order dated 28.03.2019. Further, the plaintiff was directed to file a fresh valuation slip by valuing the suit property on the market value as on the date of the institution of the suit and to deposit the deficit court fee.

4. It is pertinent to note, subsequent to passing of aforesaid order dated 28-03-2009, the defendant filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC,-IA No.V for appointment of Court Commissioner to determine the correct market value of the suit schedule property for determining the Court fee payable by the plaintiff. To resist the application, the plaintiff filed objection and after having heard the parties, the application came to be allowed vide order dated 06.11.2019. Consequently, the Sub-registrar of Pavagada taluk was appointed as court commissioner for determination of market value of the suit property as on the date of suit.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 28-03-2019 passed by this Court rejecting the valuation slip filed by the plaintiff and directing him to file a fresh valuation slip by valuing the suit property at market value as on the date of the institution of the suit and to deposit the deficit Court fee and also order dated 06.11.2019 allowing application filed by the defendant under order 26 rule 9 of CPC-IA No.V and appointment the Sub-Registrar, Pavagada taluk as Court Commissioner to determine the market value of the suit property, the plaintiff filed WP No.52600/2019 (GM-CPC) before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka allowed the