- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21061 W.P. No.44930/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.44930/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: DR. GEORGE VARGHESE AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS PRESENTLY R/AT. NO.C-86 DEFENCE COLONY NEW DELHI-110024. AND ALSO AT: NEW NO.13, JAYAMAHAL ROAD BENGALURU-560046. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADV.,) AND: M/S. R.R. ENGINEERING CO. A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:UNIT B-3, AUTONAGAR VISHAKAPATNAM-530012. AND ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT: NO.20, SANKEY ROAD UNIWORTH PLAZA BENGALURU-560020. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MASUR RAVINDRA KRISHNA RAO & SRI. R.B. PATIL, ADV.,) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF O.S.NO.5020/2018 PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED LXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD:4.9.2019 [ANNEXURE-A] PASED IN CONSIDERATION OF Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21061 W.P. No.44930/2019 INTERIM APPLICATION [I.A.NO.3] NO.3 IN O.S.NO.5020/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XLVI ADDITIONAL CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE IN AS MUCH AS THE TRIAL COURT HAS DIRECTED THE RESPONDENT TO PAY COURT FEE ON RS.10,00,000/- [RUPEES TEN LAKH ONLY] AND THE SEPARATE COURT FEE ON THE RELIEF OF PERMANENT INJUCTION AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER THE MEMO FILED BY THE PETITIONER INDICATING THE TRUE COST OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY & 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 seeking the following reliefs: "a) Call for records of O.S.No.5020/2018 pending before the learned LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore. b) Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the Impugned Order dtd:4.9.2019 [Annexure-A] passed in consideration of Interim Application No.3 [I.A.No.3] in O.S.No.5020/2018 on the file of the XLVI Additional Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore in as much as the Trial Court has directed the Respondent to pay court fee on Rs.10,00,000/- [Rupees Ten Lakh Only] and the separate court fee on the relief of permanent injunction and consequently direct the Trial Court to consider the memo filed by the Petitioner indicating the true cost of the Schedule Property. c) Award costs of these proceedings and grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the above circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity." 2. Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-plaintiff has filed the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21061 W.P. No.44930/2019 suit in O.S.No.5020/2018 against the petitioner seeking prayer to direct the petitioner not to sell the suit schedule property to any third party and to execute the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) in respect of suit schedule property and further to handover the suit schedule property to the respondent for development as per the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 20.04.2018. It is further submitted that the petitioner valued the suit under Section 40(e) and Section 47(ii) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, (for short, 'the Act') and paid the Court fee of Rs.200/-. It is also submitted that the petitioner-defendant has filed an application in IA No.3 under Section 11(2) of the Act seeking a direction to the respondent to remit the deficit Court fee as per Section 40(e) of the Act on the entire suit schedule property. The trial Court, though allowed the application, committed error in directing the respondent-plaintiff to pay the Court fee on the value of the MOU, which is Rs.10,00,000/-. It is also submitted that the case being one for specific performance of the contract, the suit is required to be valued based on the market value of the entire suit schedule property as the respondent-plaintiff is claiming the relief on the entire - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21061 W.P. No.44930/2019 suit schedule property. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Bhushan Gupta vs. Pratap Narain Verma and another1. Hence, he seeks to modify the impugned order by directing the respondent to pay the Court fee on the market value of the entire suit schedule property by allowing the petition. 3. Though the matter is adjourned on many occasions, the respondent has not appeared. 4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 5. The pleading and material on record indicate that the respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of the MOU dated 20.04.2018 by seeking the relief of direction to the petitioner not to sell the suit schedule property to any third party, further to execute JDA in respect of the suit schedule property and also prayer to handover the suit schedule property to the respondent-plaintiff as per the JDU 1 (2022) 8 SCC 333 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21061 W.P. No.44930/2019 dated 20.04.2018. The suit schedule property in the plaint is as under: SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of immovable property bearing New No.13, PID No.92-15-13, situated in Jayamahal Road, Bengaluru, BBMP Ward No.92- JAYAMAHAL, together with all buildings and structures standing thereon, measuring East to West : 70 feet and North to South : 120 Feet, totally measuring 8400 Square Feet, and bounded as follows: East by : Private Property; West by : Jayamahal Road; North by : Private Property; South by : Private Property; 6. The relief claimed in the suit is for the property measuring 8400 square feet referred in the schedule. It would be useful to refer to paragraph No.24 in the case of Bharat Bhushan Gupta referred supra, which reads as under: "24. It remains trite that it is the nature of relief claimed in the plaint which is decisive of the question of suit valuation. As a necessary corollary, the market value does not become decisive of suit valuation merely because an immovable property is the subject-matter of litigation. The market value of the immovable property involved in the litigation might have its relevance depending on the nature of relief claimed but, ultimately, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21061 W.P. No.44930/2019 the valuation of any particular suit has to be decided primarily with reference to the relief/reliefs claimed." 7. In view of the aforesaid judgment, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has committed a grave error in directing the respondent to pay the Court fee based on the value of MOU i.e., Rs.10,00,000/-. Section 40(e) of the Act clearly indicates that if the promise sought to be enforced has a market value, the computation of the Court fee should be on such market value. Considering the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Bhushan Gupta referred supra, I am of the considered view that the Court fee is required to be paid as per the market value of the relief sought in the plaint. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 04.09.2019 passed on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.5020/2018 on the file of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21061 W.P. No.44930/2019 the LXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, is hereby modified. iii. The respondent-plaintiff is directed to make good of the deficit Court fee as per the market value on the entire suit schedule property within four (04) weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the trial Court. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51