IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO.7107 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. VINAY BASAVARAJ SURPUR S/O BASAVARAJ SURPUR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.209 B M GREENWOOD APARTMENT DODDAKANNELI, SARJAPUR ROAD, CARMEL RAM POST BENGALURU -560 035 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N G PHADKE., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. KUPPUSWAMY D S/O DORAISWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.13 SATYA NILAYA MARAPPA ROAD, JOGU PALYA Digitally HALASOOR signed by BENGALURU - 560 008 NANDINI M S …RESPONDENT Location:

HIGH COURT OF (BY SRI. S.SURESH KUMAR., ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

KARNATAKA THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY ORDER OR WRIT, SETTING ASIDE / QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 26.2.2020 AT ANNEXURE-M PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-

9, IN O.S.NO.6054/2016 AND ETC THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

ORAL ORDER

1. Plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 26.02.2020 passed on IA.no.9 and the order dated 19.06.2020 passed in O.S.No.6054/2016 by the Court of XXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Suit in O.S.No.6054/2016 is filed by the petitioner herein for recovery of money. In the said suit, IA.no.9 was filed by the defendant under Sections 33 & 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'), with a prayer to impound the agreement for sale dated 18.10.2010 at Ex.P-2 and the consent agreement dated 31.05.2015 at Ex.P-2, for the reason that the said documents were insufficiently stamped.

4. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff.

5. The Trial Court vide the order impugned dated 26.02.2020, has allowed IA.no.9 and directed the office to calculate the stamp duty and penalty payable.

6. The office has, thereafter, calculated the applicable stamp duty and penalty payable and had put up a note that the plaintiff is liable to pay totally a sum of Rs.1,88,100/- towards deficit stamp duty and penalty on the aforesaid two documents. On 19.06.2020, the Trial Court has passed an order for payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, plaintiff is before this Court.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the point that arises for consideration with regard to the power of the court to impound the document after the same is marked, has been already considered by this Court in W.P.No.2383/2023 disposed of on 30.10.2025, and therefore, the order impugned dated 26.02.2020 to the said extent does not call for any interference. However, the Trial Court has erred in directing the Registry to determine the deficit stamp duty and penalty payable on the documents in question in view of Section 37(2)of the Act. He, therefore, prays that to the said extent the order impugned dated 26.02.2020 may be set aside.

6. It is not in dispute that the documents in question viz., Exs.P-1 & P-2 are insufficiently stamped. It is under these circumstances, the Trial Court after having held that the documents viz., Exs.P-1 & P-2 are insufficiently stamped, has allowed IA.no.9 and has ordered to impound the said documents. The said order has been questioned by the petitioner before this Court on the ground that since the documents are already marked, in view of Section 35 of the Act, the Trial Court was not justified in exercising its powers under Sections 33 & 34 of the Act. The said question has been considered by this Court in W.P.No.2383/2020, wherein it is held that, notwithstanding the marking of any document, if it is found that the said document is insufficien