S.G.Pandit, J. - (1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.2589/2006 is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 14-11-2013 passed on additional issue with regard to court fee by the 33rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that: Petitioner is the plaintiff who filed suit in O.S.No.2589/2006 initially with a prayer for declaration to declare that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents or anybody claiming under him from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is also the further case of the plaintiff that the trial Court had granted an interim order against the defendant not to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On issuance of the suit summons, the defendant appeared before the trial Court and filed his written statement denying the suit averments and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
(3.) It is the case of the plaintiff that during the pendency of the suit, he was dispossessed from the suit schedule property. Therefore, it became necessary for him to file an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking prayer for possession. The said application came to be allowed on 20-03-2008. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of CPC for rejection of plaint contending that the court fee paid is not sufficient, in other words, the plaintiff has not paid the court fee for the relief of possession. The said I.A. came to be rejected as premature. Subsequent to rejection of the said application, the trial Court framed additional issue which is as follows: "Whether the plaintiff proves that the court fee paid is sufficient?";