Karnataka High Court Rules There Is No Ban on Deciding Court Fee as a Preliminary Matter.
The Karnataka High Court noted that there is no rule against addressing the issue of Court fees as a preliminary matter. The Court was reviewing a Trial Court order that required the plaintiff to pay a deposit for the Court fee at the initial stage. Justice C.M. Poonacha, in a single-bench decision, remarked that the Trial Court found the properties in question to be agricultural and within the CMC limits. Referring to a previous Full Bench judgment involving Mrs. Elfreeda Winnifred D’Souza, the Justice stated that the Trial Court’s requirement for the plaintiff to pay the additional Court fee is appropriate.
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Shriharsh A. Neelopant, while Advocate Mrutyunjay S. Hallikeri represented the Respondent. The Petitioner’s counsel argued that the Trial Court’s decision contradicts the Full Bench ruling in Venkatesh R. Desai v/s Smt. Pushpa Hosmani and Others. He pointed out that the Trial Court was asked to delay the discussion on valuation and Court fees until other issues were resolved, but it chose to address them anyway. Citing a Co-ordinate Bench ruling in R. Ananda V/S Nanjudaswamy, he argued that just because the property is within municipal limits does not mean an ad valorem Court fee is necessary. He also mentioned that the plaintiff is willing to pay the Court fee if the Trial Court decides on the valuation and sufficiency of the fee along with other matters.
Counsel for the Respondent argued that according to the Full Bench judgment in Venkatesh R. Desai, the Trial Court had the discretion to address the valuation and court fee at the preliminary stage. He also claimed that the ruling in R. Ananda was overturned by another Full Bench in the case of Mrs. Elfreeda Winnifred D’ Souza v/s Mr. Robin D’ Souza And Others. The Court observed that the plaintiff failed to show that the Trial Court’s decision on valuation and court fee was incorrect. Additionally, it noted that when the preliminary issue was considered, there was no evidence that the Full Bench’s judgment was presented to the Trial Court.
The Court stated that given the unique facts of this case, the Trial Court had already evaluated the arguments from both sides and made a decision on the valuation and court fee as a preliminary issue. Since there is no legal restriction from the Full Bench’s ruling in Venkatesh R. Desai regarding addressing court fees at this stage, and considering the significant judicial time already spent on this matter, the petitioners’ claim that the order should be overturned simply because it was made at a preliminary stage is not valid. Therefore, the extraordinary discretionary power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was not invoked, and the Petition was dismissed.
Cause Title: Erappa vs The Karnataka Kurubar Boarding, Koppal
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Shriharsh A. Neelopant
Respondent: Advocate Mrutyunjay S. Hallikeri, HCGP Kirti Lata R. Patil
