1. The rejection of plaintiff’s IA-8 invoking Sections 32 and 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 for short ‘Act’, to impound Ex.D29 and direct defendants to pay duty and penalty thereon, by order dt.14.12.2010 in O.S.6616/2006 of the 5th City Civil Court, Bangalore, is called in question in this petition.

2. In the suit instituted by the petitioner for the reliefs of specific performance of an agreement dt.23.5.2002; to direct the defendants to execute an affidavit and registered lease deed of the suit schedule property for the period 1.1.2001 to 31.12.2009 and for permanent injunction in respect of the said property, the respondent-defendant, on notice, entered appearance, resisted the suit by filing written statement and counter claim to direct delivery of possession, as also to recover penal rents until delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. On the closure of the evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant called upon to adduce evidence on its side, made an application to produce and mark an attested copy of the memorandum of understanding entered into between the respondent and one Nitin Bagmane which the trial court allowed in part by not permitting the marking of the said document. There afterwards the respondent filed I.A.No.7 to produce the original memorandum of understanding and mark it in evidence. That application was allowed since the court had allowed IA-6 to produce the copy of the memorandum of understanding following which on 6.12.2010 the document was introduced in the evidence of DW-1 marked as Ex.D29 without objection or opposition, though counsel for the petitioner was present before court and sought time to cross-examine the witness. The petitioner on 6.12.2010 filed IA-8 under Sections 32 and 33 of the ‘Act’ to impound Ex.D29 and direct the defendants to pay duty and penalty on the document. In the affidavit accompanying the application sworn to be one Sanjay Kocchar, said to be the Director of the petitioner, it is stated that the plaintiff filed objections to IA-6 for permission to produce photocopy of the memorandum of understanding dt.12.8.2010 which was allowed subject to proof and admissibility, on production of the original. In para 3 of the affidavit it is stated that the petitioner objected to the document as it was not admissible in evidence and that the court had summarily allowed the application and further at the time of marking of the said document, objection was raised nevertheless the document was marked as Ex.D29. According to the deponent the contents of Ex.D29 in unmistakable terms being a joint development agreement entered into between the parties was insufficiently stamped in view of schedule 5 of the Stamp Act and hence the application to impound the same and to collect duty and penalty.

3. That application was opposed by filing statement of objections dt.7.12.2010 of the respondent terming it as frivolous, highly contumacious, not credible and that the document being sufficiently stamped does not call for interference.

4. The court below having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings observed that the facts set out in the affidavit accompanying the application were not true and correct. The memorandum of understanding Ex.D29 disclosed an endorsement of the Sub-registrar for having collected the stamp duty of Rs.20,000/- and the covenants neither disclose delivery of possession of suit schedule property nor passing of title of the immovable property to the developer except a sharing pattern of 50:50 on development. The allegation in paragraph 3 of the affidavit accompanying the application was held to be incorrect in the light of the order dt.30.11.2010 allowing IA-6 whence an attested copy of Ex.D29 was not permitted to be marked in evidence following which on 1.12.2010 IA-7 was filed to produce the original of memorandum of understanding. The petitioner’s counsel though sought time to file objections, was rejected since ther