- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1636 WP No. 107126 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 107126 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR. NAGARAJ S/O SUBRAY BANARE AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED, R/O. TODUR, KARWAR 581301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AAYUSH G. BHAT, AND SRI. GIRISH V. BHAT, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O SUBRAY BANARE AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. PVT. SERVICE, R/O. ABHIMAN APARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, S-7, RAMAKRISHNA ASHRAM ROAD, KARWAR 581301. 2. PRAKASH S/O SUBRAY BANARE AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. PVT. SERVICE, R/O. B-207, NANA EKHANDE CHAMBERS, RAMDASWADI, KALYAN (WEST) THANE, MAHARASHTRA 400080. 3. RUKMABAI W/O VITHOBA BADGERI AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. HOMEMAKER, R/O. ROOM NO.301, SHREE KRUPA CHSL, NR. TATA POWER HOUSE, NR. MAGTHANE BUS DEPOT, BORAVALI (EAST), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA 400001. 4. KAVITA W/O VISHWANATH SHETTI AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. HOMEMAKER, R/O. DOOR NO.1-100/12, VIKRAM NIVAS, ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.01.29 11:44:10 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1636 WP No. 107126 of 2024 SHIVAGIRI NAGAR, HOSABETTU VILLAGE, MANGALURU 574142. 5. SUNANDA W/O RAVINDRA BADAGERI AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. HOMEMAKER, R/O. B/206, 2ND FLOOR, DEVASHISH CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., KOLSHET ROAD, DHOKALI NAKA, THANE (W) MAHARASHTRA 400080. 6. MRANALINI W/O MANOHAR KENI AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. HOMEMAKER, R/O. PLOT NO.159/D-2, MAMTA CHS, RSC-26, GORAI II, BORIVALI (WEST), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA 400001. (NOTE: ALL RESPONDENTS WHO ARE PLAINTIFFS IN OS NO.28/2020 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER, DEEPA W/O CHANDRASHEKAR BANARE, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. HOMEMAKER, R/O. ABHIMAN APARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, S-7, RAMAKRISHNA, ASHRAM ROAD, KARWAR 581301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO,ISSUE A WRIT OR A DIRECTION OR OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KARWAR IN O.S NO. 28/2020 DATED 15/09/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AS ILLEGAL AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KARWAR TO RETURN THE PLAINT TO THE RESPONDENTS. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1636 WP No. 107126 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: I. Issue a Writ or a Direction or other appropriate Order in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Order passed by the Learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karwar in O.S. No.28/2020 dated 15/09/2021 vide Annexure-G as illegal and further be pleased to direct the Hon'ble Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karwar to return the Plaint to the Respondents. II. Grant such other reliefs and pass such other Order deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of Justice and Equity. 2. A suit in O.S.No.28/2020 had been filed seeking for partition and separate possession. The pleadings having been completed, issues were framed. The additional issue framed was, whether the plaintiffs prove that the valuation and court fee paid by the plaintiff is valid and the Court has jurisdiction. 3. The said issue was taken up as a preliminary issue and was decided in favour of the plaintiffs vide order - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1636 WP No. 107126 of 2024 dated 15.09.2021, which is challenged before the Principal District and Session Judge, Uttar Kannada, in Misc. Appeal No.5/2021, which was dismissed as not maintainable. It is challenging both the said orders that the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, plaintiffs themselves have valued the entire suit property at ₹17,00,000/-. There being six plaintiffs, each one being entitled for 1/8th share, the valuation of the property for each of the plaintiffs would be ₹1,46,914/- and as such, the valuation being lesser than ₹5,00,000/-, ought to have been filed before the Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.) and not before the Civil Judge(Sr.Dn.). 5. This aspect has been considered by Trial Court. The Trial Court has held that the entire property being valued at ₹17,00,000/- and the valuation of the share of the plaintiffs put together being ₹13,22,000/- is above ₹5,00,000/- and as such, the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1636 WP No. 107126 of 2024 filing of the suit before the Senior Civil Judge(Sr.Dn.) is proper and correct. 6. In the miscellaneous appeal, the said Court was of the considered opinion that the order impugned would not come within the purview of Order 43 of CPC and as such, no appeal would lie. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the submission that the value of the share of each of the plaintiffs is less than ₹5,00,000/- and as such it would have to be filed before the Civil Judge, Junior Division. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents No.1 to 6, having gone through the orders and the pleadings, it is seen that the plaintiffs have jointly filed a suit seeking for partition and as such, the said suit constituted one composite suit and cannot be treated as different suit for different plaintiffs. The suit being a composite one, there - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1636 WP No. 107126 of 2024 being proper joinder of cause of action as also joinder of parties, I am of the considered opinion that the relief sought for in respect of all the plaintiffs combined would have to be taken into consideration, which the trial Court has done and no infirmity can be found in the said order. 9. No grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed. Insofar as the order passed by the first appellate court, the same is not adverted to since it is not required. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE GAB,CKK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 12