IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 2960 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O D. VASUDEV AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT BACHENAHATTI VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI MAGADI TALUK RAMANGAR - 562 120.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI CHOKKAREDDY, ADV.)

AND:

1. SRI ABHIRAM .P.S.

S/O SHREERAM AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO. 33, 34,35

5TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR Digitally signed by NANDINI M BANGALORE - 560 009.

S Location: HIGH 2. SRI R. SHASHANK COURT OF S/O S. RAMESH KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT MUNICIPAL NO.2464-VS 425 THIRUMALE HAND POST EXTENSION MAGADI TOWN, RAMANGARA - 562 120 AND ALSO RESIDING AT HEMAVATHI NILAYA NES EXTENSION, WARD NO.5 MAGADI TOWN RAMANGARA - 562 120.

3. SMT. SUSHEELA RAMESH S/O S. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS HEMAVATHI NILAYA NEX EXTENSION, WARD NO.5 MAGADI TOWN RAMANGAR - 562 120.

4. DISTRICT REGISTER RAMANAGAR DISTRICT NO.103, BASEMENT FLOOR DISTRICT OFFICE BUILDING BANGALORE MYOSRE RAOD, RAMANGAR TOWN - 562 159.

5. VARTHUR SUB REGISTRAR BM COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR MUTHUSANDRA ROAD VARTHUR, BANGALORE - 560 087.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VISHWANATHA K, ADV, ADV., FOR R-1; SMT. RADHA RAMASWAMY, AGA FOR R-4 & R-5;

V/O/D 24.10.2025, NOTICE TO R-2 & R-3 IS D/W)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A, ORDER DTD 04.11.2023, IN O.S.NO.227/2020 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI, BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

ORAL ORDER

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by defendant no.3 with a prayer to set aside the order dated 04.11.2023 passed on IA no.7 in O.S.No.227/2020 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. O.S.No.227/2020 is filed by the jurisdictional Civil Court at Magadi, by respondent no.1 herein seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 04.09.2017. In the said suit, the contesting defendants have filed a detailed written statement opposing the prayer made in the suit. IA no.7 was filed by defendant no.3 under Sections 33 to 35 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'), with a prayer to impound the agreement for sale dated 04.09.2017 and to collect deficit stamp duty and penalty on the said document. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned, has rejected the said application and being aggrieved by the same, defendant no.3 is before this Court.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that stamp duty has been paid on the document in question after the suit was filed. Along with the suit, the plaintiff has filed a photostat copy of the document and subsequently he has approached the competent authority and has paid stamp duty. He submits that the competent authority ought to have collected the deficit stamp duty and penalty as provided under Section 33 of the Act, which is ten times the stamp duty that was liable to be paid. Therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting IA no.7 filed on behalf of defendant no.3. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of JAVER CHAND & ORS. VS PUKHRAJ SURANA - AIR 1961 SC

1655

5. Learned Counsel for respondent no.1/plaintiff has argued in support of the order impugned and submits that the original sale agreement was produced before the Trial Court only after the same was duly stamped, and therefore, the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.

6. O.S.No.227/2020 is filed by respondent no.1 herein with a prayer for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 04.09.2017. Along with the plaint, only the photostat copy of the said document was produced. It appears that subsequentl