In the High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020 BEFORE THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100029/2019 BETWEEN : Smt. Laxmi Kom. Nagesh Naik @ Beeramma D/o. Kallu Naik, Age 74 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. Bhavikeri, Tq. Ankola, Dist. Karwar, Pin: 581321 ... Petitioner (By Sri. S.V.Yaji, Advocate) AND: 1. Smt. Seeta W/o. Kariyanna Nayak, D/o. Rama Nayak, Age 65 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Belekeri, Tq. Ankola, Dist. Karwar, Pin: 581321. 2. Smt. Kamala W/o. Ashok Nayak, D/o. Rama Nayak, Age 60 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Near Ganapati Temple, Township, Tq. Dandeli, Dist. Uttar Kannada, Pin: 581325. 3. Shri. Beeranna S/o. Rama Nayak, CRP No.100029/2019 : 2 : Age 57 years, Occ: Teacher, R/o. Adlur, Post: Agsur, Tq. Ankola, Dist. Karwar, Pin: 581314. 4. Shri. Vijaya S/o. Rama Nayak, Age 55 years, Occ: Teacher, R/o. Govt. L.P.S. Krishnapaur, Baleguli, Tq. Ankola, Dist. Karwar, Pin: 581314. 5. Shri. Sanjeev S/o. Rama Nayak, Age 54 years, Occ: Teacher, R/o. Govt. H.P.S. Aggargone, Tq. Ankola, Dist. Karwar, Pin: 581319. 6. Shri. Narayan S/o. Rama Nayak, Age 53 years, Occ: Teacher, R/o. Govt. H.P.S. No.1, Ankola, Tq. Ankola, Dist. Karwar, Pin 581314. 7. Smt. Kalpana Kom. Narayan Nayak, D/o. Rama Nayak, Age 50 years, Occ:Agriculturist, C/o. Narayan Nayak, Milk Distributor, Behind Cinema Talkies, Tq. Yellapur, Dist. Uttar Kannada, Pin: 581359. 8. Shri. Kalappa S/o. Rama Nayak, Age 58 years, Occ:Agriculturist, R/o. Bhavikeri, Tq. Ankola, Dist. Uttar Kannada, Pin 581321. 9. U.F.M. Smt. Nagamma Kom. Govinray Nayak S/o. Rama Nayak, CRP No.100029/2019 : 3 : Age 65 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. Bhavikeri, Tq. Ankola, Dist. Uttar Kannada, Pin – 581321. ...Respondents (R1, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 – Served; Sri. Praveen Uppar, HCGP for served respondents; Notice to R2 dispensed with v/c/o. 12.11.2019) --- This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC., praying to call for the records and to set aside the order dated 05.03.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ankola in F.R.No./O.S./2/2019 directing the petitioner to pay the court fee as per Section 24(b) of the KCF and SV Act. This petition coming on for Admission through physical hearing/video conferencing hearing this day, the court made the following: ORDER The present petitioner who is the plaintiff in F.R.No./O.S./2/2019 pending before the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC Court, Ankola, (for brevity hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) has challenged the order of the trial Court dated 05.03.2019 on the payment of Court Fee. During his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though the plaint CRP No.100029/2019 : 4 : mentions at its prayer (a) that the plaintiff has sought for the relief of declaration to declare that the defendant Nos.2 to 9 and their predecessor in title will not succeed to the suit properties by virtue of fraudulent and illegal certification of the Mutation Entry No.7150 of Bhavikeri village, but the plaintiff has filed a memo in the trial Court on 25.02.2019 not pressing the said relief. However, the trial Court has not passed any order on the said memo, but proceeded to pass the impugned order. He submits that, he would not press the petition at this stage and approach the trial Court for an order on the above said memo dated 25.02.2019, and if cause of action still survives to him regarding the Court Fee, he may be given liberty to approach this Court, afresh. 2. The learned High Court Government Pleader who was directed to assist the Court in the matter submits that, the submission made by the learned CRP No.100029/2019 : 5 : counsel for the petitioner appears to be fair and be considered. 3. A perusal of the record would go to show that, the plaintiff appears to have filed a memo as per Annexure-C and dated 25.02.2019 not pressing the particular prayer in the prayer of the plaint. According to the plaintiff, the trial Court has not considered the said memo, till date. If that were to be the case, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner passing any order on the memo and more particularly if the memo is allowed, the same would have got a bearing on the Court Fee aspect. 4. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, the liberty as sought for be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of as not pressed, however, with a direction to the trial Court to consider the memo dated 25.02.2019 said to have been CRP No.100029/2019 : 6 : filed by the plaintiff, in accordance with law. In case, the cause of action still survives to the petitioner upon the Court Fee aspect, he is at liberty to approach this Court, however, in accordance with law. Sd/- JUDGE *Svh/- .