##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:23184

WP No. 2597 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

WRIT PETITION No. 2597 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI MOHAMMED SHOAIB,

S/O.LATE HYDER SHERIFF,

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

R/AT No.12, SGN LAYOUT,

2^ND CROSS, LALBAGH ROAD,

OPP. PASSPORT OFFICE,

WILSON GARDEN POST,

BENGALURU-560 027.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI R. BHADRINATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally 1. SMT. SHAHIDA,

signed by

W/O. LATE MAHABOOBALI,

VINUTHA B S

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

Location :

High Court of

Karnataka 2. SRI MOHAMMED SAGEER,

S/O.LATE MAHABOOBALI,

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

RESPONDENTS No.1 & 2 ARE

RESIDING AT No.26,

1^ST B CROSS, 1^ST FLOOR,

SRI LAKSHMI NARASHIMA SWAMY NILAYA,

FIRE WORK COLONY, J.C.ROAD,

BENGALURU-560002.

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:23184

WP No. 2597 of 2026

HC-KAR

3. SMT. NOOR JAAN,

W/O LATE HYDER SHERIFF,

AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

4. SRI MOHAMMED SUJATH,

S/O.LATE HYDER SHERIFF,

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

5. SRI MOHAMMED SIDDIQ,

S/O.LATE HYDER SHERIFF,

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

THE RESPONDENT No.3 TO 5 ARE

R/AT No.12, SGN LAYOUT,

2^ND CROSS, LALBAGH ROAD,

OPP. PASSPORT OFFICE,

WILSON GARDEN POST,

BENGALURU-560 027.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ASGAR ALI KHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 (ABSENT);

NOTICE TO R3 TO R5 DISPENSED WITH)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10/12/2025 ON IA No.2 IN OS No.

1343 OF 2024 PASSED BY THE XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND

SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS

UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:23184

WP No. 2597 of 2026

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri R. Bhadrinath, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner.

2. This petition is filed by defendant No.2(b), aggrieved by

the impugned order dated 10.12.2025 passed on I.A. No.II in

O.S. No.1343/2024 on the file of the XVI Additional City Civil

and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Trial Court’),

whereby the application filed under Sections 33 and 34 of the

Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 read with Sections 114 and 151 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been rejected.

3. The suit is one for recovery of money.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Exs.P6

and P9 were marked without examining whether proper stamp

duty had been paid on the said documents. It is contended that

when an application was filed seeking to impound Exs.P6 and

P9, the Trial Court erroneously rejected the same on the

ground that, once the documents are marked, impounding is

not permissible.

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:23184

WP No. 2597 of 2026

HC-KAR

4.1 It is further submitted that it is the duty of the Court, at

the time of marking the documents, to examine whether

sufficient stamp duty has been paid thereon. In support of the

said submission, reliance is placed on the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.M. Shahul Hammed v. Jayanthi

R. Hegde, Civil Appeal No.1188/2015 dated 09.07.2024

5. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents,

even in the second round.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner and the findings recorded by the Trial

Court, this Court is inclined to entertain the present writ

petition. The Trial Court rejected the application seeking

impounding on two grounds. Firstly, the documents were

marked in the presence of the counsel for defendant No.1 and

no objection was raised regarding the sufficiency of stamp duty

paid thereon. Secondly, it held that once a document is

marked, there is no provision to impound such marked

document.

6.1. The Trial Court, while referring to the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.M. Shahul Hammed (supra), has

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:23184

WP No. 2597 of 2026

HC-KAR

observed that the same is not applicable to the facts of the

present case. However, the Trial Court has failed to examine

the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court therein.

It has been held

Click Here to Read the rest of this document