The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial Court had the authority to impound the document for non-payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty, and to calculate the stamp duty and penalty on the document.

JUDGMENT

1. The present petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari seeking quashing the order dtd. 17/7/2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & J.M.F.C., Sullia, Dakshina Kannada, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court'), in O.S.No.91/2005, which is produced at Annexure-'D' to the petition, wherein the trial Court by observing that, in spite of the order dtd. 7/3/2007, the plaintiff before it has not paid the deficit stamp duty and penalty as calculated by it, has proceeded to send the original of the alleged Agreement of Sale dtd. 27/11/2004, upon which the deficit stamp duty and penalty was imposed, to the Deputy Commissioner as per Sec. 37(2) of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Stamp Act').

The petitioner has also sought for a writ of certiorari seeking quashing of official correspondence of the trial Court with respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner in the form of a letter dtd. 18/8/2007, which is produced at Annexure-'D-1'.

2. The present petitioner, as a plaintiff, had instituted a suit against one Smt.T.K.Gowramma in the trial Court seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The petitioner as a plaintiff had taken a contention that the property in question was the subject matter of Agreement of Sale dtd. 27/11/2004 in favour of the plaintiff. During the course of the evidence, the petitioner, as a plaintiff, sought to mark the above said Agreement of Sale dtd. 27/11/2004 as an exhibit for collateral purpose. The trial Court on scrutiny of the document, found that the document in question was insufficiently stamped and not registered though it was compulsorily registrable in view of Sec. 17 (1)(a) of Registration Act, 1908. Thereafter, on 7/3/2007, the trial Court proceeded to pass an order directing the plaintiff to pay the stamp duty and penalty to be calculated by its office. It also mentioned in the said order that if the deficit stamp duty and penalty is not paid by the plaintiff, the document will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 37(1) of Stamp Act. Since the plaintiff (petitioner herein) did not pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty within the time prescribed by the trial Court, it proceeded to pass the impugned order on 17/7/2007 by mentioning that the Agreement of Sale dtd. 27/11/2004 is impounded for non-payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty and directed the office to send the original the said document to the Deputy Commissioner as per Sec. 37(2) of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, (Annexure-'D'). Accordingly, the office of the trial Court vide its letter dtd. 18/8/2007 (Annexure-'D-1'), communicated the order to the Deputy Commissioner along with the copy of the said document. It is challenging the said Annexure-'D' and Annexure-'D-1', the plaintiff in the trial Court has filed the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that O.S.No.91/2005 came to be partly decreed by the judgment of the trial Court dtd. 17/4/2008. Against the said judgment and decree, an appeal in R.A.No.64/2008 was filed by the plaintiff in the Court of learned Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada District, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'first Appellate Court'), which ended in the compromise between the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Sec. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'CPC'), on 22/7/2010 and the same could be seen in Annexure-'C' and Annexure-'C-1' to the petition. With the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court ought not to have calculated the stamp duty and penalty by itself, but, it should have sent the document to the Deputy commissioner under Sec. 37 of the Stamp Act. As such, the trial Court by itself calculating the stamp duty and penalty and thereafter sending the document to the Deputy Commissioner under Sec. 37(2) of the Stamp Act is erroneous, as such, deserves to be set asi