- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25234 WP No. 48356 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.48356 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. N. GOVARDHAN S/O. SRI N. RADHA CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.817, 19TH MAIN ROAD, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. ANIL KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S. SHEKER SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NAGABAASI REDDY S/O. S. CHANNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.115/A, BTM I STAGE, OPP. MANTRI ELITE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076. 2. H. SRINIVASA REDDY S/O. HANUMANTHA REDDY, ADULT, RESIDING AT HALANAYAKANAHALLI, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-572 001. Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25234 WP No. 48356 of 2018 3. SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O. LATE ABBAYYAPPA @ ABBAYYA, ADULT, 4. THAGARAJA @ JAYARAMA S/O. LATE ABBAYYAPPA @ ABBAYYA, ADULT, 5. MURALI @ MURALIDHARA S/O. LATE ABBAYYAPPA @ ABBAYYA, ADULT, 6. RAMA S/O. LATE ABBAYYAPPA @ ABBAYYA, ADULT, 7. MS. SUBHA D/O. LATE ABBAYYAPPA @ ABBAYYA, ADULT, R.3 TO R.7 ARE RESIDENTS OF BILEKAHALLI VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI-570 201, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHRUTHI M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE FOR R.5; SRI FELIX, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S. SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R.2; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R.4, R.6 AND R.7 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 24.07.2023; R.4 TO R.7 ARE LR'S OF DECEASED R.3 VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 24.07.2023). THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE COURT BELOW TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC TO RECALL THE ORDER VIDE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25234 WP No. 48356 of 2018 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, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL 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. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25234 WP No. 48356 of 2018 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25234 WP No. 48356 of 2018 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25234 WP No. 48356 of 2018 recall the order dated 05.06.2018 is not maintainable, as the suit is dismissed. The petitioner has to avail other recourse available under the law. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents. Meticulously perused the materials available on record. 5. The petitioner - plaintiff filed O.S.No.16419/2006 initially for permanent injunction against the respondents herein, later the suit came to be amended seeking for the relief of declaration. The respondents - defendants raised the issue with regard to the payment of Court fee and the said issue was considered as a preliminary issue by the trial Court and recorded the finding vide judgment dated 16.04.2018. The operative portion of the order of the trial Court on the preliminary issue reads as under:- ORDER "The valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court fee by the Plaintiff is correct. The Plaintiff is directed to file the fresh valuation slip showing the valuation of the all the reliefs and the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25234 WP No. 48356 of 2018 court fees paid on the said reliefs in the prescribed formats as per the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice." 6. The aforesaid order makes it very clear that the Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner-plaintiff has paid the correct Court fee. Further, the Court has directed to file fresh valuation slip showing the valuation of all the reliefs and the correct fees paid on the said reliefs. It appears that the petitioner could not comply with the second portion of the order. The explanation offered by the petitioner for not furnishing of valuation slip is that the earlier counsel who was representing in the suit has retired from the case and later, present counsel has entered appearance. In the application seeking to recall the order dated 05.06.2018, on oath the petitioner has made an assertion that Court fee is paid and valuation slip is also furnished. The affidavit of the petitioner also indicates that the order sheet for the period between 14.02.2007 to 21.03.2007 is not available in the record. The said order sheet also reflects the production of the valuation slip. Be that as it may, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 151 of CPC before the trial Court contending that the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (b) and (c) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25234 WP No. 48356 of 2018 of CPC is incorrect and impermissible as the trial Court itself in its order dated 16.04.2018 has come to the conclusion that the Court fee paid is proper. Hence, the aforesaid provision would not be attracted. In my considered view, the trial Court has committed a grave error in not considering the application filed by the petitioner at Annexure-'F'. The trial Court is directed to consider the petitioner's application to recall the order dated 05.06.2018 taking note of the observation supra and the order dated 16.04.2018. No prejudice would be caused to the other side as the respondents have opportunity to object the said application in accordance with law. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The trial Court is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of CPC dated 19.07.2018 seeking to recall the order dated 05.06.2018 on its merits and in accordance - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25234 WP No. 48356 of 2018 with law after providing sufficient opportunity to the other side. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3