- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22447 W.P. No.46894/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.46894/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF STATE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH TRAINING NO.4 100, FT. RING ROAD BANASHANKARI-III STATE HOSAKEREHALLI, BENGALURU 560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATA, AGA) AND: HUGHES COMMUNICATION INDIA LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1, SHIVAJIMARG, WESTEND GREENS-NH8, NEW DELHI 110037. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. M.C. AMRUTHA VARSHINI, ADV.,) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.7671/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU DATED 09.07.2019. SET ATSIDE THE IMPUGNED INTERIM ORDER Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22447 W.P. No.46894/2019 DATED 09.07.2019 IN O.S.NO.7671/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A & 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 writ petition is filed by the State of Karnataka represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government and the Director, Department of State Education and Research Training, Bengaluru, challenging the order dated 09.07.2019 passed in O.S.No.7671/2017 by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard. 3. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the Trial Court without considering Section 4 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), directed the petitioners to pay the Court fees on the counter claim. It is submitted that as per the aforesaid Section, the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22447 W.P. No.46894/2019 State is not liable to pay any Court fees. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order. 4. Per contra, Smt.M.C.Amrutha, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners have filed a counter-claim in the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of money and in the said counter-claim, the petitioners have sought for recovery of certain amounts from the respondent and that the petitioners are required to pay the Court fees on such amount. It is submitted that the respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the petitioners have not paid the Court fees on the counter-claim. The Trial Court considered the same and passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference. In support of her contentions, she places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD Vs. GADDADAVANU AND ORS.1 and submits that the petitioners 1 ILR 2000 KAR 3527 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22447 W.P. No.46894/2019 are required to pay the Court fees on the counter claim. She seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides. 6. The respondent filed O.S.No.7671/2017 seeking for judgment and decree against the petitioners for recovery of Rs.35,71,286/- towards the principal amount and interest. The petitioners filed written statement and also raised a counter- claim seeking relief of dismissal of the plaint by allowing the counter-claim. The prayer in the counter-claim is at paragraph 22 of the written statement wherein various claims have been made for recovery of the sums mentioned therein. Meanwhile, the respondent filed an application in I.A.No.II under Order VII Rule 11(c) of the CPC seeking to reject the counter-claim. The said application was accompanied by an affidavit. The affidavit indicates that the petitioners claimed Rs.1,24,75,265/- which is the value of the counter-claim and they have failed to value the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22447 W.P. No.46894/2019 counter-claim and also failed to pay the Court fee as per Section 8 of the Act. Hence, he sought for rejection of the counter-claim. The Trial Court, vide order dated 09.07.2019 recorded that the petitioners filed a memo with valuation slip towards the counter-claim and based on the said valuation, the petitioners are liable to pay the Court fee of Rs.2,69,502/- and directed them to furnish the Court fee before the next date of hearing otherwise the counter claim of the petitioners would be struck off as pleaded in I.A.No.II. 7. The Trial Court, in my considered view committed a grave error in ignoring the effect of Section 4 of the Act. It would be useful to extract the aforesaid Section as under: "4. Levy of fee in courts and public offices.- No document which is chargeable with fee under this Act shall,— (i) be filed, exhibited or recorded in, or be acted on or furnished by, any court including the High Court, or (ii) be filed, exhibited or recorded in any public office, or be acted on or furnished by any public officer, unless in respect of such document there be paid a fee of an amount not less than that indicated as chargeable under this Act: Provided that, whenever the filing or exhibition in a criminal court of a document in respect of which the proper fee has not been paid is in the opinion of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22447 W.P. No.46894/2019 court necessary to prevent a failure of justice, nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to prohibit such filing or exhibition: Provided further that no fee shall be payable in respect of any document filed, exhibited or recorded by or on behalf of the State Government or any officer of the State Government in his official capacity, or acted on at the instance of or furnished to the State Government or any officer of the State Government in his official capacity. 8. In the aforesaid Section, second proviso was inserted by Act No.10 of 1964 w.e.f. 05.03.1964. The second proviso clearly indicates that no fee is liable to be paid by the petitioners. The Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, referred supra, observed as under: "9. In this case the acquiring authority, who has been impleaded as respondent before the reference Court is “State, by Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB”. But, the appeal is not by “State, represented by LAO, KIADB”, but by “Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB”. In this case the acquisition is by State. But, the appeal is not by the State Government or by the Land Acquisition Officer acting on behalf of the State Government or acting at the instance of the State Government. This appeal is filed by the Special - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22447 W.P. No.46894/2019 LAO on behalf of KIADB. The KIADB Cader and Recruitment Regulations show that “Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB” is a post under KIADB and it is filled by deputation from the Revenue Department of the State Government. “The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB”, the appellant in this appeal, is therefore an officer of KIADB acting for and on behalf of KIADB which is the Beneficiary. It is not disputed that the decision to file this appeal and the act of filing the appeal is that of KIADB and not the State Government. As this appeal is not by an officer of the State Government, acting as an Officer of the State Government, or at the instance of or under instructions from the State Government, second proviso to Section 4 will not apply." [Emphasis supplied] 9. The aforesaid enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Division Bench is very clear wherein it has distinguished that the appeal is filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB and not by the State. In other words, as the appeal is not by an Officer of the State Government acting, as an Officer of the State Government, or at the instance of or under instructions from the State Government, hence, the second proviso to Section 4 will not apply. In the case on hand, the petitioner No.1 is the State of Karnataka, represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government and the petitioner No.2 is the Director, Department of State Education and Research - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22447 W.P. No.46894/2019 Training, who are the defendants who raised the counter claim in the suit filed by the respondent. Hence, the benefit of second proviso to Section 4 of the Act will apply. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 09.07.2019 passed in O.S.No.7671/2017 by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside. Consequently, application in I.A.No.II filed by the respondent under Order VII Rule 11(c) of the CPC is rejected. (iii) The suit is of the year 2017. The Trial Court is requested to consider and dispose of the suit expeditiously. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35