- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9640 WP No. 100204 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 100204 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. SUHAS S/O DATTATRAYA PATIL AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: TAX PRACTITIONER, R/O: H.NO.466/13E, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND CROSS, BABALE GALLI, ANGOL, BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADV) AND: 1. SMT. SUNILA W/O SHASHIKANT POTE AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SBI COLONY, KUSUM NAGAR, KELGERI ROAD, DHARWAD-580007. 2. SMT. MANISHA W/O DINESH POTE AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: SBI COLONY, KUSUM NAGAR, KELGERI ROAD, DHARWAD-580007. 3. MASTER ARYAN S/O DINESH POTE AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: SBI COLONY, KUSUM NAGAR, KELGERI ROAD, DHARWAD-580007. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SATISH S RAICHUR, ADV FOR R1 & R2 NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.NO.3 OF 2015 AND I.A.NO.4/2015 DATED 27.10.2017 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN R.A.NO.82 OF 2015, COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-H. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.22 13:02:41 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9640 WP No. 100204 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 27.10.2017 on I.A.Nos.3 and 4 passed in R.A.No.82/2015 by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this Writ Petition, are as follows: 3. The petitioner filed a suit against the respondents for specific performance of a contract and damages, in O.S.No.182/2013. The respondents filed a written statement denying the execution of the sale agreement. The trial Court vide judgment dated 02.02.2015, decreed the suit with costs and directed respondents No.1 to 3 to refund the earnest money of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9640 WP No. 100204 of 2025 from the date of agreement of sale i.e., 23.07.2008, till the entire realisation of the amount. The suit of the petitioner for specific performance of contract and for damages was dismissed. The petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.82/2015 on the file of the learned VI Addl. District Judge, Belagavi. The respondents filed I.A.No.3 under Section 19 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short), on the ground that the valuation of the subject matter of the suit properties, exceeds Rs.10,00,000/-. Hence, the First Appellate Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The petitioner filed I.A.No.4 to abandon the relief of damages. The First Appellate Court, after considering the entire material on record, allowed I.A.No.3 filed by the respondents and rejected I.A.No.4 filed by the petitioner. It is held that the First Appellate Court does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present appeal and office was directed to return the memorandum of appeal to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9640 WP No. 100204 of 2025 petitioner for presentation of the same before the appropriate forum. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order on I.A.Nos.3 and 4, filed this Writ Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of a contract and valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs.9,11,230/-. He further submits that the petitioner has abandoned the relief of damages by filing an application in I.A.No.4. He also submits that the First Appellate Court has not taken into consideration the valuation shown in the plaint at annexure-A. He also submits that the First Appellate Court cannot force the party to continue in the prayer sought by the petitioner in the plaint, as the petitioner is not willing to claim any damages against the respondents. He submits that the First Appellate Court has committed an error in returning the memorandum of appeal on the ground that it does not have the pecuniary - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9640 WP No. 100204 of 2025 jurisdiction. He also submits that as per Section 19 of the Act, if the value of the subject matter is less than Rs.10,00,000/-, the District Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. He submits that, admittedly, the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction was valued by the petitioner as less than Rs.10,00,000/-. Hence, the First Appellate Court has committed an error in passing the impugned orders. Therefore, on these grounds, he prays to allow the Writ Petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has valued the subject matter for the purpose of jurisdiction for the relief of specific performance of a contract at Rs.9,11,230/- and in addition to it, the petitioner has sought damages of Rs.2,00,000/-. He submits that it exceeds Rs.10,00,000/-. Hence, the District Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed before it and he submits that the petitioner cannot abandon the relief of damages at the stage of appeal. He submits that First Appellate Court was justified - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9640 WP No. 100204 of 2025 in passing the impugned orders. Further, he submits that the WP is barred by limitation. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. There is no dispute that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of a contract against the respondents in O.S.No.182/2013. The trial Court, after full fledged trial, decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 02.02.2015 and directed the respondents to refund the earnest money of Rs.3,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of agreement of sale i.e., 23.07.2008 till the realization of amount and dismissed the suit for specific performance of a contract and damages. The petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dismissing the suit regarding specific performance of a contract and damages, passed in O.S.No.182/2013, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.82/2015 on the file of the learned VI Addl. District Judge, Belagavi. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9640 WP No. 100204 of 2025 In the said appeal, the respondents filed an application in I.A.No.3 to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the First Appellate Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said appeal, as the subject matter of the suit is valued at Rs.11,11,230/- (i.e., Rs.9,11,230 + Rs.2,00,000), which exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Fist Appellate Court. The said application was opposed by the petitioner by filing objections contending that the valuation of the suit property was valued at Rs.9,11,230/- and not Rs.11,11,230/-. Hence, the First Appellate Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. 9. I have perused the plaint at Annexure-A wherein the plaintiff has valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs.9,11,230/- and the petitioner has not made any valuation regarding the damages of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Court is required to consider the market value of the subject matter of the suit shown in the plaint. Admittedly, the petitioner has valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs.9,11,230/-. The said - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9640 WP No. 100204 of 2025 aspect was not properly considered by the First Appellate Court and has committed an error in allowing I.A.No.3 filed by the respondents. 10. The petitioner filed I.A.No.4, wherein he has abandoned his claim about the relief of damages. The First Appellate Court has failed to consider the well established principle of law that the plaintiff/petitioner is the master of his case and whatever relief the plaintiff wants to seek, he is entitled to claim and if the petitioner is not willing to claim any damages, the petitioner cannot be forced to claim the relief of damages. The said aspect of the matter was not adequately considered by the First Appellate Court and First Appellate Court has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in 1970 (2) Mys. L.J. S.N. Item No.222. Admittedly, in the said case, the suit was dismissed at the appeal stage and in the said suit, an application was filed seeking to withdraw the suit after a decree had been passed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9640 WP No. 100204 of 2025 11. In the instant case, the main relief sought by the petitioner is for the relief of the specific performance of a contract as far as relief of damages is concerned, it is only a consequential relief. The decision relied on by the First Appellate Court, do not apply to the case on hand. The First Appellate Court has committed an error in rejecting I.A.No.4. The First Appellate Court committed an error in passing the impugned orders. The impugned orders passed by the First Appellate Court, are arbitrary, perverse and erroneous and they are liable to be set aside. 12. In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is allowed. I.A.No.4 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff is allowed and the order dated 27.10.2017 passed in R.A.No.82/2015 by the learned IV Addl. District Judge, Belagavi, is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.3 filed by the respondents under Section 19 of the Act is rejected. The petitioner is permitted to abandon his claim regarding damages. The First Appellate Court has got the pecuniary - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9640 WP No. 100204 of 2025 jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NAA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0