Writ petition challenging valuation and court-fee directions becomes infructuous after revaluation and payment of the requisite fee.

The petitioners challenged an order dated 27 November 2025 of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, directing them to furnish a valuation certificate from the concerned Sub-Registrar and pay court fee on the actual market value of the suit properties.

During the writ proceedings, respondent No. 1 filed a memo stating that the suit had been re-valued and the requisite court fee paid. The petitioners did not dispute the memo’s contents.

1. Whether the writ petition had become infructuous after the suit was re-valued and the requisite court fee was paid.

2. Whether any further relief was required against the challenged direction once the valuation and court-fee requirements had been met.

The Court applied the procedural principle that a proceeding may be dismissed as infructuous when subsequent events have removed the live controversy or rendered the requested relief unnecessary.

The Court relied on the undisputed memo stating that the suit had been re-valued and the requisite court fee paid; no statutory provision or precedent was cited in the order.

The writ petition challenged the direction to obtain a valuation certificate and pay court fee on the properties’ actual market value.

Since the suit had been re-valued and the required court fee paid during the pendency of the petition, and the petitioners did not dispute those facts, the Court considered the challenge to have lost its practical purpose.

The Court dismissed it on that ground. It granted no further relief.