IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 30428 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. VINCENT D ALMEIDA S/O SALVADOR D ALMEIDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A JOVIAL NEAR CHERKADI CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY P.O. CHERKADI - 576 215 UDUPI DISTRICT

2. ASHOK MADIVALA S/O ANANTHA MADIVALA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A ANANTHA LAKSHMI KRIPA Digitally signed KANNARU VILLAGE by P.O.CHERKADI - 576 215 SHARADAVANI B UDUPI DISTRICT Location: High Court of Karnataka …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VYASA RAO K.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. LAXMI KULATHI W/O BACHAL KULAL SINCE DEAD RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF R1

2. RAGHU KULALA S/O BACHA KULAL AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

3. SHARADHA KULALTHI D/O BACHA KULAL AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

4. BABY KULALTHI D/O BACHA KULAL AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT ADJIL AROOR VILLAGE KUNJAL POST: AROOR - 576 213 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4 VIDE ORDER DATED 25.03.2025, R2 TO R4 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R1)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNX-A DATED 07.06.2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI ON I.A.NO.3 IN O.S.NO.96/2017 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 VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL ORDER

1. The plaintiffs have filed this writ petition challenging the Order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Udupi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court') on I.A.No.III filed in O.S.No.96/2017.

2. Sri.Vyasa Rao K.S, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale against the respondents. In the said suit, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and got marked agreement of sale as Ex.P1 which was accepted by the Trial Court and admitted as evidence. It is further submitted that the defendant raised objections for admitting the said agreement of sale i.e., Ex.P1 by filing an application under Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') contending that the instrument is insufficiently stamped. It is also submitted that the Trial Court under the impugned order upheld the contention of the defendant contrary to Section 35 of the Act, as once, the instrument is admitted in the evidence, the only remedy lies is to challenge the same as provided in Section 58 of the Act and not before the same Court. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jevar Chand and Ors. v. Pukhraj Surana, 1AIR 1961 SC 1655 and the decision of this Court in the case of Sakamma v. Pavadi Gowda and Others² and seeks to set aside the impugned order while allowing the writ petition.

3. Per contra, Sri.Hareesh Bhandary T, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the order of admitting the instrument was exparte. Thereafter, the defendant entered appearance, filed written statement and on noticing the deficiency of stamp duty paid, filed an application, which has been rightly considered by the Trial

(1998) ILR (Karnataka) 3842

Court under the impugned order. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the writ petition.

4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced and the records placed before the Court.

5. The petitioner filed O.S.No.96/2017 for relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 30.05.2012 and also sought for alternate relief. The material on record would indicate that the plaintiff adduced the evidence as PW1, got marked agreemen