HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6975 WP No. 10275 of 2022 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 10275 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. B.M.BALAKUMAR S/O SRI. B.M.MUNISWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/A BYRATHI VILLAGE, BIDHARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 077. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C.SHANKAR REDDY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. B.M.ARUN KUMAR S/O SRI. B.M.MUNISWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/A BYRATHI VILLAGE, BIDHARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560 077. 2. SRI. K.ANANTHAPPA S/O LATE SRI.KANAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/A BYRATHI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 077. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.VISHWANATH., ADVOCATE FOR [ABSENT) HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6975 WP No. 10275 of 2022 - 2 - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 28.09.2021 MADE ON I.A. NO.12 FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 (2) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S.NO. 977/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU THE ANNX-G TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION. QUASH THE COMMON ORDER DTD. 25.03.2022 MADE ON I.A. NO.14 FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT AND ON I.A. NO.15 FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, MADE IN O.S. NO.977/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU THE ANNX-K TO THE WRIT PETITION, REJECTING THE SAME AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATIONS BY GRANTING THE RELIEFS IN I.A.NO. 14 AND I.A. NO. 15. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 28.09.2021 passed in O.S.No.977/2009 by learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (hereinafter ‘Impugned Order’). By the Impugned Order an application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, 1908 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was rejected by HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6975 WP No. 10275 of 2022 - 3 - the learned Trial Court. The present petition also challenges an order dated 25.03.2022, which was filed seeking review of the Impugned Order. 2. None appears for the respondents despite service. 3. Given the pendency of the matter and the fact that stay of proceedings before the learned Trial Court was granted by this Court on 30.06.2022, this Court deems it apposite to hear and decide the matter today. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as concerns the Impugned Order dated 28.09.2021 is in two parts. The first part of the order was a decision on the valuation of the suit property while the second part was a decision on the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading the proposed Defendant Nos.4 to 27. He submits that so far as concerns the second part, the learned Trial Court has recently by an order dated 31.01.2026 allowed the application for impleadment and thus the prayer for impleadment does not survive. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6975 WP No. 10275 of 2022 - 4 - 5. This Court has been handed a copy of the order dated 31.01.2026 passed by learned Trial Court. By order dated 31.01.2026, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC has been allowed. Thus there cannot be any challenge to the same in this petition. 6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court while deciding the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC has also given a finding on the suit valuation without giving any opportunity to the petitioner/plaintiff to be heard on this aspect, which cannot be sustained. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner explains that, at present the trial in the matter has commenced and learned Trial Court had already framed an issue of the court fee and valuation, which issue although not argued, was decided by the learned Trial Court by the Impugned Order. Thus, he submits that finding of the learned Trial Court qua the suit valuation in the Impugned Order requires to be set aside. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6975 WP No. 10275 of 2022 - 5 - 8. The record also reflects that the issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 06.02.2017 and that the issue of valuation and court fee was framed as Issue No.4 in the following manner: “Whether the valuation made and court fee paid is correct and insufficient?” 9. An examination of the Impugned Order reflects that the learned Trial Court has while deciding the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, proceeded to give a finding on court fee and valuation of the plaint. The relevant extract of the Impugned Order is set out below: “4. The suit is for partition of 1/3rd share and also declaration to declare that GPA dated 20-02-1992 does not bind and court fee of Rs.200/- is paid, by valuing under section 35(2) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act. 5. As per averments made in IA.No.12 filed under order 1 rule 10(2) of CPC, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of portion of suit properties. Therefore, at this stage court feels, the suit ought to have been valued under section 35(1) and also they should have sought for recovery of possession and also declaration to declare that the registered sale deeds do not bind their share. But no reliefs have been sought against proposed defendants, instead simply filed the IA. Therefore, without seeking proper prayers against proposed defendants no.4 to 27, the application is not maintainable. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6975 WP No. 10275 of 2022 - 6 - 6. Therefore, before rejecting the application the court needs to give an opportunity to plaintiffs to make proper corrections namely: 1. The court fee on market value in respect of non agricultural properties. 2. The suit is to be valued under section 35(1) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act in view of proposed defendants are in possession of portion of suit property. 3. The prayer in respect of sale deeds of proposed defendants no.4 to 27 is to be sought. Therefore, stage is given for compliance of above particulars by 25-10-2021”. [Emphasis supplied] 10. As can be seen from the records, that no arguments on Issue No.4 were referred to on that date, the only arguments adverted to were on the impleadment application. In any event, since an issue was framed on court fee and valuation, the parties ought to be given an opportunity to address their arguments on the same. The Impugned Order does not reflect the same. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6975 WP No. 10275 of 2022 - 7 - 11. Accordingly, the findings in the Impugned Order to the extent that it fixes court fee for non-agricultural purposes and decides valuation are set aside. Since the Impugned Order is set aside the order dated 25.03.2022 does not survive. The learned Trial Court shall decide the Tissue of court fee and suit valuation in accordance with law. 12. The petition is partly allowed in the aforegoing terms. All pending applications stand closed. 13. The order being passed today without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE SNB/RJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA