- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6761 WP No. 29959 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 29959 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RAMAKKA W/O AVULAPPA AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HER GPA H A SAMPATH KUMAR S/O AVALAPPA AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A HOSAHUDYA VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLIL CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT 562101 2. SMT GAYTHRI W/O H A SAMPATH KUMAR AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A RESIDING AT HOSAHUDYA VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT 562101 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. A.LOURDU MARIYAPPA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. DILSHAD BEGUM D/ODIVAN SAB AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS R/A SHANTHINAGAR SIDLAGHATTA TOWN AND TALUK CHIKKABALLPURA DISTRICT 562105 2. SMT SHAMSHAD BEGUM W/O RAHAMATHULLA AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6761 WP No. 29959 of 2025 3. SMT ERASHAD BEGUM W/O ZAVEED PASHA AGE ABOUT 34 YEARS BOTH R2 & R3 ARE R/A RAHAMATHNAGAR SIDLAGHATTA TOWN AND TALUK 56105 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYASHREE G. FOR; SRI. R V SRINIVASA REDDY.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOCALL FOR THE RECORDS IN OS NO. 669/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SECONDE ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKKABALLAPURACONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE HONBLE II ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHIKKABALLPURA IN OS NO. 669/2023 DTD 2.07.2025 AT ANX- K ON APPLICATION IA UNDER SECTION OF 11 OF KARANTAKA COURT FEE ANDSUIT VALUATION ACT 1958 AND R/W UNDER ORDER 14 RULE 5 OF CPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND ALLOW THIS WP AND FURTHER DIRECT THE COURT BELOW TO FRAME THE ISSUE NO. 4 AS PRELIMINARY ISSUE IN OS NO. 669/2023. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendants in O.S.No.669/2023 is directed against the impugned order dated 02.07.2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioners-defendants under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC to treat the issue regarding valuation and court fee as - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6761 WP No. 29959 of 2025 a preliminary issue was rejected by the Trial Court by holding as under: “ORDERS ON I.A FILED UNDER ORDER 14 RULE 5 OF CPC The defendants have filed the application to consider the Issue No.4 at the outset as preliminary issue, before recording evidence on the merits of the matter. 2. The plaintiffs have opposed the same. 3. Heard both sides and perused the pleadings and materials placed on record. 4. The points that arises for consideration are as follows: 1. Whether valid grounds are made out to try the issue No.4 as preliminary issue? 2. What order? 5. The findings on the above points are as follows: Point No.1: In the Negative. Point No.2 : As per the final order, for the following: R E A S O N S 6. Point No.1:- The Issue No.4 reads as follows: “Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient?” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6761 WP No. 29959 of 2025 7. This issue is now sought to be tried as preliminary issue. The mandate under Sec.11(2) of KSF & SV Act stipulates that in issue regarding Court fee and jurisdiction shall be tried as preliminary issue. However, it is necessary to try the said issue in the present set of facts as prayed for, has to be considered with reference to the purpose underlying in the aforementioned mandate. The Court fee payable being one of the sources of revenue to the public exchequer, insufficient Court fee paid being a ground for rejection of plaint, the mandate under Sec.11 is generally followed. However, the peculiar set of facts and circumstances involved herein has to be considered instead of generalizing the principle underlying Sec.11 supra. 8. This is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants in respect of the land earing Sy No.15/1 property. They have clearly pleaded that he plaintiffs are absolute owners and in possession of suit property. 9. The plaintiffs have valued the suit under Sec.24 (b) R/w Sec.7 of K.C.F. & S.V. Act. The defendant No.1 has pleaded in the Written Statement dated 11.01.2024 that the plaintiffs have not in possession of suit schedule property as on the date of suit and revenue record of suit property are not in their name , but it is in the name of defendant No.2 and paid up to date revenue taxes and thus as they have not sought for the relief of possession. Pursuant to such Written Statement, the above mentioned Issue No.4 is framed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6761 WP No. 29959 of 2025 10. At this stage the question arise before the court that whether the issue regarding court fee can be considered as preliminary issue. It is relevant to refer the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in 2018 SCC online kar between Venkatesh R Desai vs Smt.Pushpa Hosmani as held that "As to whether, by virtue of Section 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, when an issue of valuation and court fees is raised on the objections of the defendants, the same is invariably required to be tried as a preliminary issue and before taking evidence on other issues?" 32. In the context of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, on the principles aforesaid and for the purpose for 4 O.S NO.669/2023 which the provision is enacted, we are clearly of the view that the expression 'shall' as used in sub-sections (2) and (5) of Section 11 of the Act of 1958 is required to be construed as directory in nature and not mandatory. In other words, the determination of the questions envisaged by sub- sections (2) and (5) of Section 11 of the Act of 1958 may be undertaken by the Court before the evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim in its discretion; and such a discretion would obviously be conditioned by the requirements of Rule 2 of Order XIV CPC. Tersely put, in our view, if the Court finds that the question of valuation and/or court fees as raised by the defendant relates to the jurisdiction of the Court, it may try such an issue first and before the evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim; and in other - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6761 WP No. 29959 of 2025 eventualities, the Court may examine such a question of valuation and/or court fees, but not necessarily as a preliminary issue or before the evidence on other issues. 11. The above decision make it emphatically clear that in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction the plaint averments are germane but not the defence raised. For incorrect valuation U/s.24(b) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, the claim for declaration will have to be rejected rather than the court converting the suit into one U/s.24(a) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act. Similarly, in such a suit taking up the issue of court fee which does not pertain to the aspect of jurisdiction at all, as a preliminary issue is not mandatory. In the light of the above settled principles of law, the present set of facts have to be examined. 12. Therefore, when the plaintiffs herein have valued the suit under Sec.24(b) of the KCF & SV Act, a fixed Court fee is payable by the plaintiffs. If the said valuation for the purpose of the Court fee is incorrect, it is a ground for dismissal of the suit. However, whether the plaintiffs are in possession or whether they are excluded from possession is foundational for either decreeing or dismissing the suit. Therefore, without recording evidence on the merits of the claim, this foundational aspect cannot be decided. On this ground alone the prayer now made by the defendant to take up the Issue No.4 as preliminary issue has to be rejected, for no purpose would be served by taking up the Issue No.4 alone. In this view of the matter, valid ground are not made - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6761 WP No. 29959 of 2025 out to take up the issue of Court fee as preliminary issue. Hence, point No.1 is answered in the Negative. 13. Point No.2 :- In view of the findings on the above points, the following order is passed : ORDER The application filed by the Defendants U/order 14 Rule 5 of CPC to consider Issue No.4 as preliminary issue is hereby rejected. It is clarified that Issue No.4 is kept open for consideration on merits, after conclusion of recording of evidence on merits.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and reconsideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or having occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath – (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6761 WP No. 29959 of 2025 Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 4. It is also pertinent to note that the Trial Court which is the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapur, has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the suit and consequently, in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Full Bench in the case of Venkatesh R. Desai Vs. Smt. Pushpa Hosamani & others – ILR 2018 KAR 5095, which has been relied upon by the Trial Court, the question of treating the issue regarding Valuation and Court fee as a preliminary issue would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the petition is dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20