- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22216 W.P. No.23069/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.23069/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. HASEENA BEGAUM W/O SRI. M. RASHEED KHAN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.89 PANDRAM LANE MARIKUPPAM VILLAGE K G F, KOLAR DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. G. SHAHATAJ BEGAUM W/O SRI. L. SYED S. HAHZADHA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDENT OF S.N.M. SCHOOL ROAD ANDERSONPET, K G F KOLAR DISTRICT-563113. 2. THE TERRITORY MANAGER BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED NO.17 DUPRE, TRINITY CIRCLE M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD HEGDE, ADV., FOR SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADV., FOR R1 V/O/DTD:20.12.2021 NOTICE STANDS WAIVED IN R/O R2) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22216 W.P. No.23069/2021 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2021 PASSED IN O.S. 58/2017 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KGF, VIDE ANNEXURE-F BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI & 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 challenging the order dated 27.09.2021 passed in OS.No.58/2017 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, K.G.F (for short 'the trial Court'). 2. Sri.M.B.Chandrachooda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction. In the said suit, the trial Court, suo motu based on the objections raised by the defendant No.1 concluded that the plaintiff has not paid the court fee as per the guidance value and directed the plaintiff to make good of the same. It is submitted that such an order can be passed by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22216 W.P. No.23069/2021 trial Court only if the defendant files an application and on such application, there must be an adjudication to determine the actual court fee. It is further submitted that the trial Court, without following any of such procedure, based on the guidance value, took the responsibility of valuing the suit by incorrectly calculating the same and directed the plaintiff to pay the court fee which is impermissible. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Guruprasad Hegde, learned counsel for Sri.S.V.Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that respondent No.1/defendant No.1 had filed a detailed written statement. Subsequently, an application was filed seeking amendment of the written statement to incorporate a plea regarding improper valuation of the suit, which came to be rejected vide order dated 25.05.2021. Thereafter, a guidance value notification was placed before the Court and based on such valuation, the trial Court directed the plaintiff to pay the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22216 W.P. No.23069/2021 requisite court fee as per Section 7(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'). Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments on both the sides and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction. In the said suit, the defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 filed an application in IA.No.4 seeking amendment of the written statement to raise an objection regarding the valuation of the suit; however, the said application came to be rejected by the trial Court by order dated 25.05.2021. The trial Court, under the impugned order dated 27.09.2021 considering the certified copy of the guideline value notification pertaining to suit schedule property assessed the market value and directed the plaintiff to pay the court fee accordingly. It is to be noticed that the trial Court - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22216 W.P. No.23069/2021 undertook the responsibility of determining that the suit schedule property had a market value of Rs.21,400/- per square meter by placing reliance on the guideline value notification. The said finding of the trial Court is without due inquiry. Further, the question as to whether the suit schedule property falls within the ambit of the notified guideline value ought to have been adjudicated by providing sufficient opportunity to the parties. Instead of considering the said aspect as an issue in the suit, the trial Court proceeded to direct the plaintiff to pay the court fee on its own assessment of market value, which is not in accordance with law. 6. It is to be noticed that the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Venkatesh R. Desai v. Smt.Pushpa Hosamani and Others1 while considering the scope and effect of Section 11 (2) and (5) of the Act, has held that the issue with regard to the court fee is required to be considered and tried along with the other issues in the 1 AIR 2019 KAR 47 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22216 W.P. No.23069/2021 suit. Only where such an issue touches the jurisdiction of the Court, can it be tried as a preliminary issue. In the case on hand, the trial Court has not considered the issue of court fee as a preliminary issue, but proceeded to direct the plaintiff to pay a certain amount which is impermissible. Accordingly, the impugned order needs interference. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.09.2021 is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to frame an additional issue regarding the payment of court fee and to try the same along with the other issues in the suit. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20