IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 22631 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. T.H. RUDRAPPA S/O LATE, HIRIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. SMT. GEETHA, W/O T.H. RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT, 49 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT, THINDLU VILLAGE, VIDYARANPURA POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 097.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NARENDRA.S, ADVOCATE)

Digitally AND:

signed by MADHURI S Location: H igh 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Court of DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Karnataka VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE.

BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY 2. SMT. SAROJAMMA, W/O, P. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT THINDLU VILLAGE, VIDYARANPURA POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 097.

3. M.E. PILLAPPA S/O ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 4. P.NAVEEN KUMAR, S/O M.E.PILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.32, ERANNA NILAYA, DODDABOMMASANDRA, CHAMUNDESHWARI LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU-560 097.

5. NARASIMHA ACHAR JOSHI, S/O, J.SUDHINDRA ACHAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 6. JOSHI NARAYAN ACHAR S/O, J.SUDHINDRA ACHAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT, NO. 50/1, 3^RD CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, CHAMUNDESHWARI LAYOUT, DODDABOMMASANDRA, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 097.

7. T.H. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O, LATE, HIRIYANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O, THINDLU VILLGE, VIDYARANPURA POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 097.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. V. HEMALATHA, AGA FOR R-1)

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2025 PASSED BY XLI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN OS NO. 8606/2019 AS PER ANNEXURE -G AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND OPPOSED TO LAW.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:

“a. Issue writ of certiorari by quashing the order dated

6-1-2025 passed by XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru in O.S.No.8606/20219 as per Annexure ‘G’ as the same is illegal and opposed to law, b. Consequently allow the I.A.1/2023 filed by the defendants 5 and 6 /Petitioner herein under Section 11(2), (3) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act 1958 as per Annexure ‘E’.

c. Grant such other relief/s as the situation demands with cost in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid suit filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff against the petitioners-defendant Nos.5 and 6 and other defendants seeking declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property, the petitioners not only put forth a counter claim but also filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit had not been properly valued and the court fee paid was insufficient. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court by placing reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Full Bench in the case of Venkatesh R. Desai Vs. Smt. Pushpa Hosamani & others – ILR 2018 KAR 5095 by holding that the said issue would necessarily have to be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit and not at the stage of considering an application IA No.1/2023, which was rightly rejected by the Trial Court by holding as under:

“ ORDER ON I.A.No.1/2023 The defendants No.5 and 6 have filed the above application under Section 11(2) and (3) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to reject the plaint as the court-fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient in the interest of justice and equity.

2. In the affidavit annexed to the application it is stated that the suit is for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their henchmen from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and at the