In the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore On

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE ON THE 5th DAY OF JUNE 2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.36170 OF 2010 (GM-CPC) Between : Sheshappa Sheka S/o. Thyampanna Sheka Since Dead Rep by LRs: 1(a) Smt. Lalitha, Aged about 57 years 1(b) Shri. Karunakara Sheka Aged about 40 years 1(c) Smt. Jayanthi Aged about 38 years 1(d) Shri. Purushothama Sheka Aged about 35 years 1(e) Shri. Chandra Sheka Aged about 32 years 1(f) Smt. Puspavathi. Aged about 27 years All residing at: Peelyadka House Kolnad Village, Post: Manchi Bantwal Taluk D.K. 574 219 ... Petitioners 2 (By Smt. Suvarna. N for Shri. A. Keshava Bhat, and Shri. K. Srikrishna, Advs.) And : 1. Smt. Susheela M Sheka W/o. Late P. Mahabala Sheka Aged 72 Years R/A Peelyadka House Kolnad Village, Post: Manchi Bantwal Taluk, D.K.574219 2. P. Jayarama Sheka S/o. Late. P. Mahabala Sheka Aged 49 Years R/A Peelyadka House Kolnad Village, Post: Manchi Bantwal Taluk, D.K.574219 3. Smt. Padmavathi J shetty Age: 46 Years W/o. Chandrahasa Shetty R/A Manoor House Charia Post, Via Manjeshwar Kuloor Village, Kasaragod Taluk 4. P. Narayana Sheka S/o. Mahabala Sheka Aged About 42 Years Peelyadka House Kolnad Village, Post: Manchi Bantwal Taluk D.K. 574 219 5. Smt. Chandravathi R kajava W/o. Ranganatha Kajava Aged 38 Years 3 R/A Pattori House Post: Asaigoli, Konaje Mangalore Taluk, D.K. 575 001 6. Smt. Leelavathi r shetty W/O Raghurama Shetty Aged 34 Years R/A Kadvayi House Balepuni Post & Village Bantwal Taluk D.K. 574 219 1. 7. Kum. Sujatha m sheka D/o. P Mahabala Sheka Aged 27 Years R/A Peelyadka House Kolnad Village, Post: Manchi Bantwal Taluk D.K. 574 219 ... Respondents (By Sri. M. Sudhakar Pai, Adv.) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution Of India praying to set-aside the impugned order dated 02.11.2000 on I.A. No.IV in O.S. No.188/2008, passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal, D.K. vide Annexure – A. This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing (B-Group), the Court delivered the following: 4 ORDER In the plaintiff’s suit seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendant to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 11.05.2002, the defendant filed an application in I.A. No. 4/2002, under Order – XIV, Rule – 5 of CPC for framing additional issues with regard to the suit valuation. The trial Court rejected the same. Hence, the present petition. 2. The trial Court while rejecting the application came to the conclusion that the suit is properly evaluated and hence there is no question of framing additional issues. 3. I am of the considered opinion that when the suit is with regard to payment of proper court fee, the same would have to be considered with reference to the pleadings and thereafter to come to a conclusion that it is necessary to frame additional issues. The lower court has failed to do so. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the court below is set-aside. The trial Court is directed to rehear the application in 5 I.A.No.4/2002 and pass appropriate orders on merits by June’2012. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE JJ* .

Load more