A trial court cannot suo motu determine market value via guideline notifications to demand additional court fees; such issues must be tried alongside the main suit unless they specifically impact the court's jurisdiction.

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2021 PASSED IN O.S. 58/2017 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KGF, VIDE ANNEXURE-F BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI & ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.09.2021 passed in OS.No.58/2017 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, K.G.F (for short 'the trial Court').

Sri.M.B.Chandrachooda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction. In the said suit, the trial Court, suo motu based on the objections raised by the defendant No.1 concluded that the plaintiff has not paid the court fee as per the guidance value and directed the plaintiff to make good of the same. It is submitted that such an order can be passed by the trial Court only if the defendant files an application and on such application, there must be an adjudication to determine the actual court fee. It is further submitted that the trial Court, without following any of such procedure, based on the guidance value, took the responsibility of valuing the suit by incorrectly calculating the same and directed the plaintiff to pay the court fee which is impermissible. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

Per contra, Sri.Guruprasad Hegde, learned counsel for Sri.S.V.Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that respondent No.1/defendant No.1 had filed a detailed written statement. Subsequently, an application was filed seeking amendment of the written statement to incorporate a plea regarding improper valuation of the suit, which came to be rejected vide order dated 25.05.2021. Thereafter, a guidance value notification was placed before the Court and based on such valuation, the trial Court directed the plaintiff to pay the requisite court fee as per Section 7(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'). Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

I have heard the arguments on both the sides and meticulously perused the material available on record.

The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction. In the said suit, the defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 filed an application in IA.No.4 seeking amendment of the written statement to raise an objection regarding the valuation of the suit; however, the said application came to be rejected by the trial Court by order dated 25.05.2021. The trial Court, under the impugned order dated 27.09.2021 considering the certified copy of the guideline value notification pertaining to suit schedule property assessed the market value and directed the plaintiff to pay the court fee accordingly. It is to be noticed that the trial Court undertook the responsibility of determining that the suit schedule property had a market value of Rs.21,400/- per square meter by placing reliance on the guideline value notification. The said finding of the trial Court is without due inquiry. Further, the question as to whether the suit schedule property falls within the ambit of the notified guideline value ought to have been adjudicated by providing sufficient opportunity to the parties. Instead of considering the said aspect as an issue in the suit, the trial Court proceeded to direct the plaintiff to pay the court fee on its own assessment of market value, which is not in accordance with law.

It is to be noticed that the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Venkatesh R. Desai v. Smt. Pushpa Hosamani and Others , AIR 2019 KAR 47 while considering the scope a