##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4592

WP No. 26962 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO. 26962 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI S MANJUNATH

S/O LATE B. SRINIVAS

AGED 47 YEARS

R/AT NO.65, SIDDANNALANE,

CUBBONPET, J.M.ROAD

BENGALULRU 560002

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. NARAYAN M.NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT SHANTHA BAI

W/O SRI N RADHAKRISHNA

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

R/AT NO 855, 1^ST FLOOR,

Digitally signed

by 61^ST CROSS, 58^TH MAIN ROAD

SHARADAVANI

B 1^ST STAGE, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT

Location: High

BENGALULRU 560078.

Court of

Karnataka …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.D.GANGADHARA, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER

DTD 5.07.2025 IN OS NO. 813/2020 PASSED BY THE HONBLE

VI ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU

CCH-11 PRODUCED AT ANNX-A SAME IS PASSED ARBITRARY

AND AGAINST TO THE LAW WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE

PROCEDURE AND NOT SUSTAINABLE UNDER THE LAW AND

ETC.,

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4592

WP No. 26962 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.813/2020 is

directed against the impugned order dated 05.07.2025,

whereby the trial Court directed the petitioner to pay deficit

stamp duty of Rs.8,550/- and its 10 times penalty of

Rs.85,500/- on document produced as Ex.P12 by the petitioner

during the course of evidence.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and lc for

the caveator/respondent and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that

the petitioner/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the

respondent/defendant for eviction/ejectment of the

respondent/defendant from the suit schedule property and for

other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the

respondents/defendants, the petitioner adduced oral and

documentary evidence during the course of which, a lease deed

dated 13.12.2013 was marked by the petitioner as Ex.P12.

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4592

WP No. 26962 of 2025

HC-KAR

Subsequently, the trial Court proceeded to impound the said

document and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.8,550/- towards

deficit stamp duty and Rs.85,500/- towards 10 times penalty

by passing the impugned order, which reads as under:

ORDER ON STAMP DUTY AND PENALTY

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for

plaintiff and Learned Counsel for Defendant on the

stamp duty on impounded document marked as ExP-

12 which is lease deed dated 13.12.2013. The said

document was tendered in evidence and it has been

impounded for the purpose of determining stamp

duty and penalty.

2. It was directed to the office to calculate

stamp duty and penalty on the lease agreement. As

per office note, lease amount is 8,75,000 and under

Article 30 (i)(ii) of Karnataka ₹ Stamp Act, proper

stamp duty payable on the said document is 8,750

and already stamp duty of Rs.200 is paid on the ₹

said document and balance duty will be 8,550 and its

10 ₹ times penalty is 85,500/- and plaintiff is liable

to pay the ₹ stamp duty and penalty of 94,050/- on

the said document.

3. It is contended by Learned Counsel for

Plaintiff that, once the document is marked, it cannot

be ordered to pay the stamp duty and penalty and

lease deed can be marked for collateral purpose. He

has further submitted in his arguments that, since

ExP-12 and release date dated 13.12.2013 produced

by the defendant are one and same, and it was made

in two sets and defendant is party to the agreement

and he being lessee also liable to pay duty and

penalty on the said document.

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4592

WP No. 26962 of 2025

HC-KAR

4. My predecessor in office has observed in the

order sheet dated 19.04.2025 that, defendant also

relied upon the lease deed dated 13.12.2013 which

was intended to rely upon in the cross examination

of PW-1 by way of confrontation and at this stage,

the Court did not admit the docum