Valuation and court-fee issues are preliminary only if jurisdictional and potentially dispositive.

The petitioner, plaintiff in O.S. No. 25/2015, sought declaration and injunction.

The Trial Court treated Issue No. 6 concerning valuation and court fee as a preliminary issue and directed her to pay court fee under Section 38 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, calculated on a market value of ₹85,00,000; it further stated that failure to pay by the next hearing would result in rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227, arguing that the valuation had no basis and that the issue should not have been tried preliminarily in light of the Full Bench decision in Venkatesh R. Desai v. Smt. Pushpa Hosmani.

1. Whether an issue concerning valuation and court fee must invariably be tried as a preliminary issue before evidence on the merits is recorded

2. Whether the Trial Court’s order directing payment of court fee on the stated market value, with the issue treated preliminarily, should be quashed

Section 11(2) and (5) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, read with Order XIV Rule 2 CPC, do not require every objection to valuation or court fee to be determined as a preliminary issue before evidence is recorded.

Under the Full Bench ruling in Venkatesh R. Desai v. Smt. Pushpa Hosmani, ILR 2018 KAR 5095, the Trial Court may try such an issue preliminarily where it relates to jurisdiction and the suit, or a part of it, could be disposed of on that determination; otherwise, it may be considered along with the other issues.

The Court applied the Full Bench rule and observed that the dispute before it concerned proper valuation of the subject matter and payment of court fee, not the Trial Court’s jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the court-fee issue was not required to be decided preliminarily.

The Trial Court’s decision to treat Issue No. 6 as preliminary and to impose a deadline backed by possible plaint rejection was therefore inconsistent with the applicable approach.

The matter was remitted to the Trial Court to try Issue No. 6 along with the other issues.

The Court also stated that the plaintiffs could bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent on record before the Trial Court.