ORDER :

This writ petition is filed by the defendants against the order dated 22.3.2016 passed on I.A.16 in O.S.No.1075/1995 by the 14th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore dismissing the application filed by them under Section 34 r/w 37 of the Karnataka Stamp Act.

2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of money for a sum of Rs. 2,10,17,100/- together with interest reserving liberty to the plaintiffs, in the event of the defendants defaulting in payment of the amounts claimed in prayer (i) to apply the Hon’ble Court for the sale of mortgaged immoveable properties described in schedule A to D by public auction or private treaty and to apply the sale proceeds realized thereon, etc., raising various contentions. The defendants filed their written statement denying the plaint averments in part and admitting the claims in part and sought for dismissal of the suit.

3. During the evidence of P.W.1, memorandum of understanding between the parties has been marked as Ex.P.1. Subsequently, the defendants filed an application I.A.16 under Section 34 r/w Section 37 of the Karnataka Stamp Act to impound the document Ex.P.1. The trial Court considering the application and objections, by the impugned order dated 22nd March, 2016 dismissed the application holding that at the time of marking the documents, during the evidence of P.W.1, memorandum of understanding has been marked as Ex.P.1 and at the time of marking the said documents, the defendants had not raised any objections. The judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the defendants is not applicable. Therefore, dismissed the application. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Respondents served and unrepresented.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

6. Sri Diwakar, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that Ex.P.1 is an unregistered document which ought not to have been marked in the evidence of P.W.1. and the trial Court ought to have impounded the document under Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act directing the plaintiff to pay the stamp. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Miss Sandra Lesley Anna Bartels – vs. P. Gunavath reported in AIR 2013 Karnataka 52 and Shivaputrappa and Another –vs. Smt. Ningamma and Others reported in ILR 2014 Kar. 4705 and sought to allow the writ petition.

7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, it is not in dispute that the respondent plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,10,17,100/-. It is also not in dispute that during the course of evidence of P.W.1, the memorandum of understanding entered into between the parties has been marked as Ex.P.1. At that time, the defendants though represented through their Counsel did not object for marking of the said document. Once the document is marked without objection, no subsequent objection regarding its marking cannot be gone into and as such, the documents will have to be looked into while deciding the case on merits. My view is fortified by the dictum of this Court in the case of Smt. Savithramma R.C. –vs. M/s. Vijaya Bank and Another reported in ILR 2015 Kar 1984 wherein at paragraphs 3, 6, 7 and 8 it has been held as under:

3. The Trial Court is right to the extent that, once the document is marked without objection, no subsequent objection regarding its marking can be gone into and such document will have to be looked into while deciding the case on merits. This, however, does come in the way of the court discharging the statutory duty contemplated under Sec. 33 of the Act. Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, which deals with Examination and impounding of instruments reads as under:

33. Examination and impounding of instruments.– (1) Every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in-charge of a public office, except an officer of police, before whom any instrument, chargeable in his opinion, with duty, is produced or co