- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19835 WP No. 12888 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 12888 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. M.S. MARA MARDANA S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT MARA SANDRA KASABA HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT -572214 …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAMACHANDRA.H FOR SRI H.R.ANANTHA KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATES) AND: SMT. D.L. AMBIKAMMA W/O LATE BASAVARAJAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT KUMBARA BEEDI BIRUR, KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT 562082 ALSO AT C/O SHANTHAMMA W/O GANGADHARAIAH GRAMA PANCHAYAT MEMBER NAVILE, KASABA HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 214 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI B.R.RAGHAVENDRA, FOR SMT.VARSHA R. IYENGAR, ADVOCATES) Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19835 WP No. 12888 of 2019 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.2.2019 PASSED BY THE IA NO.III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TARIKERE IN O.S.NO.15/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-H 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 C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER The present Writ Petition is filed by the plaintiff calling in question the order dated 26.2.2019 passed in OS No.15/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge, Tarikere1, whereunder the Trial Court has directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit duty of `17,73,200/- within 30 days. 2. The relevant facts leading to the present petition are that the plaintiff instituted a suit in OS No.15/2015 for specific performance of the Agreement dated 9.3.2012. The said suit is contested by the defendant. When the Sale Agreement dated 9.3.2012 was sought to be tendered in evidence, the defendant filed IA.No.3 to impound the Sale Agreement dated 9.3.2012. The said application was objected to by the plaintiff. The Trial Court by order dated 10.7.2015 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19835 WP No. 12888 of 2019 allowed the application and impounded the document and referred the document to the jurisdictional District Registrar for determining the duty and penalty. Upon receipt of the report of the District Registrar, Chikkamagalur, the Trial Court passed the order dated 26.2.2019 requiring the plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp duty of `17,73,200/- within 30 days. Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.2.2019, the present petition is filed. 3. The submissions of learned counsel Sri Ramachandra H for Sri H.R.Anantha Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri B.R.Raghavendra for Smt Varsha R.Iyengar, learned counsel for the respondents have been considered and the material on record has been perused. 4. The primary contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the Trial Court was not entitled to levy the penalty and the same ought to have been done by the Deputy Commissioner. Reliance is placed on the coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in the case of United Precision Engineers Pvt. Ltd., v. KIOCL Ltd.,2. 2 ILR 2016 KAR 1707 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19835 WP No. 12888 of 2019 5. The contention put forth by the petitioner is ex facie untenable and liable to be rejected in view of the fact that this Court in the case of United Precision Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,2 after noticing the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Digambar Warty v. Bangalore Urban District3 has held as follows: “11. From the provisions contained in Sections 33, 34, 37(1), 37(2), 38, 39 of the Karnataka Act, 1957, the view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Division Bench, the position of law is therefore clear that the obligation cast on the Civil Court in respect of an instrument not being duly stamped, is to impound the same and determine the duty and penalty payable. The Civil Court has no discretion, but to impose the penalty of ten times of the deficit and permit the party to pay the same. If the party chooses to pay the same, the effect of impounding gets diluted and the document will become admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the same as per law. In such event, the Civil Court is required to despatch an authenticated copy of the instrument along with the deficit duty and penalty collected, to the Deputy Commissioner. The matter does not stop at that. Though the Civil Court as bound by law would collect the penalty at ten times, the power is still vested with the Deputy Commissioner under Section 38 of the Karnataka Act, 1957 to hold an enquiry and reduce the penalty in the manner as provided therein. 12. As observed in Digambar Warty (supra) the said procedure is prescribed with a dual purpose, firstly, to avoid overburdening the Court with the work of deciding 3 2012 SCC OnLine Kar 8776 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19835 WP No. 12888 of 2019 the quantum of penalty as it would require providing opportunity and arriving at a decision. Secondly, it is also to accelerate the proceedings before the Court by giving an option to the party to pay the amount and proceed with the case and thereafter secure a decision from the Deputy Commissioner with regard to actual penalty payable and obtain refund if any. On the other hand, on determination by the Civil Court if the party does not choose to pay the amount, the impounding will continue to subsist. In such situation the instrument will not be available to be admitted in evidence and as such the original is to be sent to the Deputy Commissioner as provided under Section 37(2) of the Karnataka Act, 1957. In that case, the Deputy Commissioner shall proceed in terms of Section 39 of the Karnataka Act, 1957 and on such consideration after collecting the amount, it will be sent back to the Impounding Officer since on such collection of the amount the impounding will stand diluted and the instrument will become admissible.” (emphasis supplied) 6. It is clear from the proposition of law as noticed above that the Civil Court, after impounding the document, collecting the duty and penalty is under a statutory obligation to send such instrument/authenticated copy thereof to the Deputy Commissioner as required under Section 37 of the Karnataka Stamp Act4 with the duty and penalty so collected. Thereafter, a power is conferred on the Deputy Commissioner under Section 38 of the Stamp Act to hold an enquiry after 4 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Stamp Act’ - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19835 WP No. 12888 of 2019 giving an opportunity to the person, who has paid the duty and penalty to extend the benefit of reduction of penalty, if he thinks fit. 7. Hence, it is clear that the Civil Court was justified in requiring the petitioner to pay the duty and penalty as ordered above. 8. It is also relevant to note here that the order of the Trial Court dated 10.7.2015, whereunder the agreement was impounded has not been challenged. Further, the petitioner has also not disputed the quantum of duty and penalty as assessed by the District Registrar. 9. In view of the aforementioned, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the order passed by the Trial Court is in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present Writ Petition. 10. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55