- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3019 WP No. 5075 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5075 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: DR. (SRI. ) BANTWAL MOHAN MAHESH RAO S/O SRI. BANTWAL MADHAV MOHAN RAO AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.201, BRIGADE REGAL APARTMENT 2901/D7, 3rd MAIN ROAD V V MOHALA, MYSURU 570 007 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VEERAYYA HIREMATH.,ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. VRISHABENDRAKUMAR G S/O LATE SRI. GOPALACHAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO. 109, D BLOCK 25th CROSS, J P NAGAR MYSURU 570 008. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P NATARAJU.,ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.10.23 IN OS NO. 1164/2021 PASSED BY THE VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3019 WP No. 5075 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, in O.S.No.1164/2021, whereby the loan agreement dated 22.10.2098 has been impounded and stamp duty and penalty to be payable by the plaintiff has been calculated at Rs.29,37,000/-. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SEETHARAMA SHETTY vs. MONAPPA SHETTY reported in AIR 2024 SC 5327, the trial court has no power to calculate the penalty and stamp duty. Under the same Act, they are to be referred to the competent authority, i.e., the District Registrar. The relevant portion relied upon by the learned counsel is extracted below: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3019 WP No. 5075 of 2024 “ 21.8. The scheme does not prohibit a party to a document to first invoke directly the jurisdiction of the District Registrar and present the instrument before Court/Every Person after complying with the requirement of duty and penalty. In such an event, the available objection under Sections 33 or 34 of the Act is erased beforehand. The quantum of penalty is primarily between the authority/court and the opposing party has little role to discharge. 22. Reverting to the circumstances of the case by keeping in perspective the steps summarised in the preceding paragraph, we notice that, before the stage of admission of the instrument in evidence, the respondent raised an objection on the deficit stamp duty. Therefore, it was the respondent who required the suit agreement to be impounded and then sent to the District Registrar to be dealt with under Section 39 of the Act. In this case, the respondent desired the impounding of the suit agreement and collect the deficit stamp duty and penalty. The trial court is yet to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act. On the contrary, the trial court has called for a report from the District Registrar, so for all purposes, the suit instrument is still at one or the other steps summed up in paragraph 21. Therefore, going by the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3019 WP No. 5075 of 2024 request of the respondent, the option is left for the decision of the District Registrar. Contrary to these admitted circumstances, though the suit instrument is insufficiently stamped, still the penalty of ten times under Section 34 of the Act is imposed through the impugned orders. The imposition of penalty of ten times at this juncture in the facts and circumstances of this case is illegal and contrary to the steps summed up in paragraph 21. The instrument is sent to the District Registrar, thereafter the District Registrar in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 39 of the Act, decides the quantum of stamp duty and penalty payable on the instrument. The appellant is denied this option by the impugned orders. It is trite law that the appellant must pay what is due, but as is decided by the District Registrar and not the Court under Section 34 of the Act. 23. Hence, for the above reasons, the direction to pay ten times the penalty of the deficit stamp duty merits interference and accordingly is set aside. The trial court is directed to send the agreement of sale dated 29.06.1999 to the District Registrar to determine the deficit stamp duty and penalty payable. Upon receipt of the compliance certificate from the District Registrar, without reference to an objection under the Act, the suit - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3019 WP No. 5075 of 2024 document be received in evidence. All objections available to the respondents except the above are left open for consideration.” 3. The same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. In view of the above, the following order is passed: (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the trial court in O.S.No.1164/2021 is set aside. (iii) The trial court is directed to send the agreement dated 22.10.2019 to the District Registrar to determine the requisite stamp duty and penalty payable . (iv) The trial court, upon receipt of the compliance certificate from the District Registrar, can proceed with the matter. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80