- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4137 WP No. 29896 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 29896 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI KAKI VENKATESHA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 2. SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS BOTH PETITIONER NO.1 & 2 ARE R/AT NO.27/1, 573, DURGA NAGAR, DHARMAVARAM TOWN, SATHYA SAI DISTRICT - 515 671 ANDHRA PRADESH STATE 3. SRI. K. HANUMANTHAPPA, S/O LATE CHIKKARANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.27-8-1047, SHIVA BALAJI NAGAR, MUDDAREDDYPALLY, HINDUPUR TALUKA, SATHYA SAI DISTRICT - 515 201 ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. 4. SMT. RANGAMMA, W/O LATE K. VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4137 WP No. 29896 of 2025 5. SMT. RAMALAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE K. VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 6. SRI SRINIVASA S/O LATE K. VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 7. SRI K.V. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE K. VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 8. SRI R. SRINIVASA S/O LATE K. RAMA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.4 TO 8 ARE R/AT # 27-08-1126, ARAVINDA NAGAR, MUDDAREDDYPALLY, HINDUPUR TALUKA, SATHYA SAI DISTRICT - 515 201 ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVINDRA G.KOLLE, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. ECODE ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY (P) LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 NO. 356/1, 16th MAIN, 4TH "T" BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 041. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR AND C.T.O DR. B.S. RANGARAJ AGED MAJOR …RESPONDENT (Notice to Respondent is dispensed with) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4137 WP No. 29896 of 2025 THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PAVAGADA IN O.S.NO. 142 OF 2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, ETC., 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 plaintiff in O.S.No.142 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Pavagada is directed against the impugned order dated 07.02.2025, whereby, the Trial Court directed the petitioners/plaintiffs to pay ad-valorem Court-fee on the market value of the suit schedule property, without even issuing notice to the respondent/defendant. Accordingly, for the order proposed, notice to the respondent/defendant is dispensed with. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4137 WP No. 29896 of 2025 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioners/plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondent/defendant seeking the following reliefs in respect of the suit schedule properties mentioned hereunder: PRAYER FOR JUDGEMENT AND DECREE The plaintiffs prays for judgment and decree declaring that the sale transaction dated 05.01.2018 is cancelled or rescinded and for directions to the sub-Registrar Pavagada Taluk to cancel the sale agreement dated 05.01.2018 by entering the same in the necessary book maintained for this purpose and for costs and such other reliefs that may be deem fit, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES Sy. No. Total Extent of land Kharab land Remaining land Parties Name Mutated Land 2 2.25 0.03 2.22 Hanumantharayappa 0.17 13/1 29.12 0.18 28.34 Hanumantharayappa 2.30 16 1.34 0.03 1.31 Hanumantharayappa 0.11 32 2.25 0.01 2.24 Hanumantharayappa 0.17 36 32.07 5.14 26.33 Hanumantharayappa 4.15 37 5.21 0.09 5.12 Hanumantharayappa 0.35 35 3.08 0.03 3.05 Hanumantharayappa 0.20,08 77.12 6.11 77.01 Hanumantharayappa 9.25 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4137 WP No. 29896 of 2025 3. As can be seen from the reliefs sought for by the petitioners/plaintiffs and the nature/character of the suit schedule properties, they are described as agricultural lands and the same has not been converted/diverted for non-agricultural purposes, as can be seen from the revenue records/RTCs produced by the petitioners/ plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, for the purpose of payment of Court-fee, the petitioners/plaintiffs valued the suit schedule properties under Section 24(d) r/w Section 7(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short, 'KCF & SV Act'). 4. When the matter came up before the Trial Court, after hearing the petitioners/plaintiffs, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners/plaintiffs had filed an incorrect Valuation Slip and ought to have invoked Section 38 of the of the KCF & SV Act instead of Section 24(d) and since Section 7(2) of the of the KCF & SV Act was not applicable, the Trial Court did not even issue notice or suit summons to the respondent/ - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4137 WP No. 29896 of 2025 defendant and instead directed the petitioners/plaintiffs to pay ad-valorem Court-fee on the plaint along with a fresh Valuation Slip as hereunder: "The plaintiffs are hereby directed to pay Court Fee on an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- per acre in total Rs.15,07,187.5/- for 8 acre 24.8 guntas which is the amount mentioned in the agreement of sale as per Section 38 of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act along with fresh valuation slip". 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 6. A perusal of the plaint averments and documents produced by the petitioners/plaintiffs will prima-facie indicate that the suit schedule properties had not been converted/diverted for non-agricultural purposes. Further, the alleged Sale Agreement dated 05.01.2018 in respect of which the petitioner had filed the suit also described the suit schedule properties as agricultural/ un- converted lands/properties. Under these circumstances, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4137 WP No. 29896 of 2025 the Trial Court clearly fell in error in coming to the prima- facie conclusion that the petitioner was duty bound to value the suit under Section 38 of the KCF & SV Act and not either under 24(d) or 7(2) of the KCF & SV Act. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and direct the Trial Court to issue suit summons and emergent notice to the respondents and adjudicate upon the issue relating to valuation and court-fee after appearance of respondent/ defendant before the Trial Court, in accordance with law. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i) Petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned order is hereby set aside. iii) The Trial Court is directed to issue suit summons/ emergent notice to the respondent/defendant and proceed further, in accordance with law. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4137 WP No. 29896 of 2025 iv) All rival contentions between the parties including the issues/question as to valuation and court-fee are kept open to be decided by the Trial Court, after appearance of the respondent/defendant before the Trial Court and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE DH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16