The present petitioner has sought for a writ of

certiorari seeking quashing the order dated 17.07.2007,

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 dated 07.03.2007, the

plaintiff before it has not paid the deficit stamp duty and

penalty as calculated by it, has proceeded to send the

3

original of the alleged Agreement of Sale dated 27.11.2004,

upon which the deficit stamp duty and penalty was

imposed, to the Deputy Commissioner as per Section 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 dated 18.08.2007, 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 dated

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 dated 27.11.2004 as an

4

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 Section 17 (1)(a) of

Registration Act, 1908. Thereafter, on 07.03.2007, 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 Section 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 17.07.2007 by

mentioning that the Agreement of Sale dated 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

Section

37(2)

of

Karnataka

Stamp

Act,

1957,

5

(Annexure-`D’). Accordingly, the office of the trial Court

vide

its

letter

dated

18.08.2007

(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 dated 17.04.2008.

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 Section 151

of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter for brevity

referred to as `CPC’), on 22.07.2010 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

6

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

Section 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

Section 37(2) of t