Insufficiently stamped documents are not admissible as secondary evidence, and the Trial Court has a duty to decide the admissibility of documents when objected to on grounds of stamp duty.

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONERS represented by their power of attorney holder who are some of defendants in Original Suit have filed this writ petition questioning the correctness of the order dated 2-11-2002 passed by the V addl. City Civil Judge in OS 6674/98 produced at Annexure-E to the petition and sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the same urging various facts and legal contentions.

( 2 ) THE brief facts are stated for the purpose of considering and answering the rival legal submissions made on behalf of the parties. Respondents 1 to 4 herein have filed suit for permanent injunction on the basis of the alleged agreement of sale dated 28-2-1997 said to have been executed by one Mr. Khasim Khan and children. In the said original suit written statement was filed by the petitioners disputing the genuineness of the documents and further contended that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Sy. No. 21 of devarajeevanahalli measuring 2 acres 28 guntas as absolute owners as they have obtained registered sale deed dated 12-3-1999 in their favour through the Court on the strength of the Decree obtained by them in OS 21/97 suit for specific performance of contract in respect of the property in question. It is their case that earlier to the said sale deed referred to supra they were tenants of the property and they obtained agreement of sale from the erstwhile owner of the property through his power of attorney holder.

( 3 ) ON the basis of pleadings, the Trial court framed issues. In support of the claim of respondents 1 to 4, the first respondent was examined as PW. 1. During his evidence petitioners raised objection for marking of the alleged agreement of sale dated 28-2-1997 and the same was marked subject to objection as per Ex. P. 2. Thereafter, the Trial court has passed an order on the question of payment of duty and penalty upon the document under the provisions of Karnataka stamp Act of 1957 by passing the order dated 28-3-2000 and they were directed to pay the same, against which order, respondents 1 to 4 filed CRP No. 1828/2000 before this Court questioning the legality of the same which came to be dismissed by order dated 8-2-2002 (reported in 2002 AIR kant HCR 2568 : AIR 2003 Karnataka 3 ). Against the said order Spl. Leave Petition in no. 12084/2002 was filed before Honble supreme Court wherein the Apex Court confirmed the order passed in CRP by dismissing the SLP vide its order dated 15-7-2002. The Review Petition was also filed by respondents and the same came to be dismissed by this Court as per its order dated 15-6-2002.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, respondents 1 to 4 filed memo under Order 8 Rule 10 to reject the written statement of the petitioner on the alleged ground that the same is not filed within time. The said memo was rejected on 18-9-2002 by passing a considered order. Thereafter, one more application was filed by the respondents under S. 113 CPC which came to be dismissed as withdrawn. The respondents herein have been filing application after application with a view to protract the proceedings to gain time for payment of duty and penalty on the documents and ultimately they failed to pay duty and penalty of Rs. 21,97,900/- upon the document. Since they did not pay the said amount, document Ex. P. 2 was impounded and referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for collecting the duty and penalty under the provisions of Karnataka stamp Act. Thereafter, they adduced evidence and examined one of the respondents PW 2 partly.

( 5 ) DURING the course of evidence of the defendants, the counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs sought to confront with the xerox copy of Ex. P2 as respondents to identify the signatures of executant as well as witnesses in the Xerox copy of the document ex. P2. The same was seriously objected to by the petitioners counsel and thus thereafter, the petitioners were directed by the court below to file written objections for marking the si

Click Here to Read the rest of this document