- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11455 WP No. 12817 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 12817 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI B R BHASKAR S/O LATE L. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT BRINDAVAN, RAMASWAMY PALYA, MARATHAHALLI POST, BANGALORE-560 037. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAYAZ SAB B.G.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT UMASHANTHI W/O J.MAHESH KUMAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT GODREJ WOODSHEN APARTMENT, ALDER-B-WING, NO.604, B.B.ROAD, HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560 037. 2. SRI.P.MUNIVENKATAPPA S/O LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.119, YAMALUR POST, BANGALORE-560 037. 3. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL S/O LATE B.PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.27/2, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11455 WP No. 12817 of 2020 KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA, BELLANDUR POST, BANGALORE-560 103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.H. NAGARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DATED 13.11.2020 NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.10.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.10124/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE ANNEXURE-G BY ACCEPTING THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE R-1/DEFENDANT NO.1 WITH REGARD TO THE MARKING SALE AGREEMENT DATED 17.10.2006 AND ORDERED TO IMPOUND THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 17.10.2006 TO PAY THE DUTY AND PENALTY OF RS.10,83,255 FOR THE 2ND TIME IS ILLEGAL AND ERRONEOUS ONE AND FURTHER PASS AN ORDER DIRECTING THE TRIAL COURT TO RECEIVE THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 17.10.2006 AS PER ANNEXURE-D IN EVIDENCE AND PERMIT THE PLAINTIFF TO MARK IT AS AN EXHIBIT, IN SO FAR AS THE RELIEF OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT IS CONCERNED, WITHOUT IMPOUNDING AND COLLECTING ANY FURTHER STAMP DUTY AND PENALTY FOR THE SECOND TIME AS ORDERED BY THE TRIAL COURT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11455 WP No. 12817 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.10124/2015 pending consideration on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (herein referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2020 passed by the Trial Court, in and by which the agreement of sale dated 17.10.2006 produced by the plaintiff has been impounded with the direction for payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.98,475/- and 10 of times penalty thereon, in all Rs.10,83,225/- within period of one month with a further direction that if said amount was paid, to send a copy of the agreement to the District Registrar for issuance of endorsement under Section 41 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short 'Act'). 2. The above suit is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking specific performance of the aforesaid agreement of sale dated 17.10.2006 against the respondents/defendants. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that the said suit was filed on 10.12.2015 and within 5 days thereafter he filed an application under Section 31 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 seeking - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11455 WP No. 12817 of 2020 adjudication/determination of stamp duty payable on the aforesaid agreement dated 17.10.2006. That upon adjudication of the matter, the District Registrar had directed the petitioner to pay an aggregate sum of Rs.1,96,760/- towards deficit stamp duty and penalty vide order dated 17.02.2016 produced at Annexure-C. That upon payment of the said amount an endorsement as required under Section 41 of the Karnataka Stamp Act 1957 was made on the aforesaid agreement. That when the said document was tendered in evidence the Trial Court vide impugned order dated 13.10.2020 came to the conclusion that since the agreement was of the year 2006 and the deficit stamp duty was paid subsequent to filing of the suit, the payment of such stamp duty penalty was not appropriate and the document could not be held to be duly stamped. Accordingly, proceeded to exercise the power under Sections 33 and 34 of the Stamp Act 1957, resulting in the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition and taking this Court through the impugned order submits that the petitioner under the law had an option to tender the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11455 WP No. 12817 of 2020 document for adjudication for the purpose of payment of stamp duty before the District Registrar which is a statutorily conferred right, duly exercised by him and the same cannot be found fault with. He submits the District Registrar in exercise of his powers under Section 31 and Section 39 of the Act has determined the deficit stamp duty and penalty payable thereon which has been promptly paid by the petitioner/plaintiff as seen in the endorsement. He submits once the stamp duty on the document has been duly paid, the Trial Court could not have reopened the matter and called upon the petitioner to pay stamp duty and penalty as done in the instant case. That the said procedure adopted by the Trial Court is one without authority of law. 4. In support of his submission he refers to the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of SEETHARAMA SHETTY VS. MONAPPA SHETTY reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2320. Referring to paragraph 21.1.1 learned counsel submit that the law in this regard is fairly settled in which the party seeking producing document has an option to voluntarily submit the documents for adjudication of stamp duty or have an option to have the same impounded and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11455 WP No. 12817 of 2020 determined to the Court. Therefore submitted that the order passed the Trial Court runs contrary to the provisions of Act and law settled by the Apex Court. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents justifying the order passed by the Trial Court submits that admittedly agreement is dated 17.10.2006 and the suit was filed in the year 2015 and 5 days subsequent to filing of the suit, the plaintiff has voluntarily paid the stamp duty which cannot be held to be "duly stamped" as held by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. DYAVAMMA ALIAS SANNA MUKKAMMA VS. SMT. BALAMMA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2010 Kar. 3280. Thus, heavily relying upon the said judgement of the Coordinate Bench of this Court the counsel for the respondents submits the order impugned cannot be found fault with requiring any interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, seeks for dismissal the petition. 6. Heard. Perused the records. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11455 WP No. 12817 of 2020 7. Facts in question not being in dispute does not require reiteration. Agreement of sale was executed on 17.10.2006. That the suit has been filed on 10.12.2015. Annexure-C is an order dated 17.02.2016 passed by the District Registrar for Stamps. Perusal of the said document would reveal that the petitioner on 15.12.2015 had filed an application seeking determination of stamp duty and penalty if any payable in terms of Section 31 of the Karnataka Stamp Act 1957. Upon filing of the said application, the District Registrar has taken up the matter under Section 33 read with Section 39 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The said order dated 17.02.2016 is extracted hereunder; ಕಾಟಕ ಕಾಟಕ ಕಾಟಕ ಕಾಟಕ ಸಾರ ಸಾರ ಸಾರ ಸಾರ (ೋಂದ ೋಂದ ೋಂದ ೋಂದ ಮತು ಮತು ಮತು ಮತು ಮುಾಂಕ ಮುಾಂಕ ಮುಾಂಕ ಮುಾಂಕ ಇಾೆ ಇಾೆ ಇಾೆ ಇಾೆ) ªÀÄÄzÁæAPÀUÀ¼À ಉಪ ಉಪ ಉಪ ಉಪ ಆಯುಕರು ಆಯುಕರು ಆಯುಕರು ಆಯುಕರು ಾಗೂ ಾಗೂ ಾಗೂ ಾಗೂ ಾ ಾ ಾ ಾ ೋಂದ ಾ!ಾ"ಗಳ$ ೋಂದ ಾ!ಾ"ಗಳ$ ೋಂದ ಾ!ಾ"ಗಳ$ ೋಂದ ಾ!ಾ"ಗಳ$, %&ಾನಗರ %&ಾನಗರ %&ಾನಗರ %&ಾನಗರ ೋಂದೆ ೋಂದೆ ೋಂದೆ ೋಂದೆ, EªÀgÀ ಾ)*ಾಲಯದ ಾ)*ಾಲಯದ ಾ)*ಾಲಯದ ಾ)*ಾಲಯದ ನಡುವ.ಗಳ$ ನಡುವ.ಗಳ$ ನಡುವ.ಗಳ$ ನಡುವ.ಗಳ$, ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ:48.3ೇ ೇ ೇ ೇ ಮಹ0 ಮಹ0 ಮಹ0 ಮಹ0, 1ಂ2 1ಂ2 1ಂ2 1ಂ2 ಟವ3 ಟವ3 ಟವ3 ಟವ3, ಚ5 ಚ5 ಚ5 ಚ5 67ೕ8 67ೕ8 67ೕ8 67ೕ8, 9ೆಂಗಳ:ರು 9ೆಂಗಳ:ರು 9ೆಂಗಳ:ರು 9ೆಂಗಳ:ರು-1 ¸ÀASÉå : J¸ïeÉJ£ïBJreÉB126B2015-16 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 17/02/2016 ಉಪ6;ತರು ಉಪ6;ತರು ಉಪ6;ತರು ಉಪ6;ತರು: ಾ ಾ ಾ ಾ ೋಂದ ಾ!ಾ"ಗಳ$ ೋಂದ ಾ!ಾ"ಗಳ$ ೋಂದ ಾ!ಾ"ಗಳ$ ೋಂದ ಾ!ಾ"ಗಳ$ ಾಗೂ ಾಗೂ ಾಗೂ ಾಗೂ ಮುಾಂಕಗಳ ಮುಾಂಕಗಳ ಮುಾಂಕಗಳ ಮುಾಂಕಗಳ ಉಪ ಉಪ ಉಪ ಉಪ ಆಯುಕರು ಆಯುಕರು ಆಯುಕರು ಆಯುಕರು, %&ಾನಗರ %&ಾನಗರ %&ಾನಗರ %&ಾನಗರ ೋಂದ ೋಂದ ೋಂದ ೋಂದ ೆ ೆ ೆ ೆ, 9ೆಂಗಳ:ರು 9ೆಂಗಳ:ರು 9ೆಂಗಳ:ರು 9ೆಂಗಳ:ರು. ಅಾರರು ಅಾರರು ಅಾರರು ಅಾರರು %ೕ %ೕ %ೕ %ೕ ====.ಆ> ಆ> ಆ> ಆ>.9ಾಸ?> 9ಾಸ?> 9ಾಸ?> 9ಾಸ?>, ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ: ಬೃಂ ಬೃಂ ಬೃಂ ಬೃಂಾವನ ಾವನ ಾವನ ಾವನ BಾಮCಾDE BಾಮCಾDE BಾಮCಾDE BಾಮCಾDE Fಾ Fಾ Fಾ Fಾ¼Àå ªÀiÁgÀvÀºÀ½î CAZÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 560 037. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11455 WP No. 12817 of 2020 ಅಾರ ಅಾರ ಅಾರ ಅಾರ ಪರ&ಾG ಪರ&ಾG ಪರ&ಾG ಪರ&ಾG %ೕ %ೕ %ೕ %ೕ ====.ಆ> ಆ> ಆ> ಆ>.9ಾಸ?> 9ಾಸ?> 9ಾಸ?> 9ಾಸ?>, 9ೆಂಗಳ:ರು 9ೆಂಗಳ:ರು 9ೆಂಗಳ:ರು 9ೆಂಗಳ:ರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು Hಾಂಕ Hಾಂಕ Hಾಂಕ Hಾಂಕ:15/12/2015 ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ¸À°è¸À¯ÁzÀ ತಮI ತಮI ತಮI ತಮI ಮನJಯ ಮನJಯ ಮನJಯ ಮನJಯ KೊLೆ KೊLೆ KೊLೆ KೊLೆ Hಾಂಕಃ Hಾಂಕಃ Hಾಂಕಃ Hಾಂಕಃ 17/10/2006 ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ಬBೆಯಲNಟO ಬBೆಯಲNಟO ಬBೆಯಲNಟO ಬBೆಯಲNಟO, "FULL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH POSSESSION" ಎಂಬ ಎಂಬ ಎಂಬ ಎಂಬ %BೋಾQಯುಳR %BೋಾQಯುಳR %BೋಾQಯುಳR %BೋಾQಯುಳR ದCಾ&ೇನ ದCಾ&ೇನ ದCಾ&ೇನ ದCಾ&ೇನ ಪSಯನುT ಪSಯನುT ಪSಯನುT ಪSಯನುT ಲಗS6 ಲಗS6 ಲಗS6 ಲಗS6, ಸದ" ಸದ" ಸದ" ಸದ" zÁ¸ÀÛªÉÃfUÉ FಾವSಸ9ೇಾದ FಾವSಸ9ೇಾದ FಾವSಸ9ೇಾದ FಾವSಸ9ೇಾದ ಮುಾಂಕ ಮುಾಂಕ ಮುಾಂಕ ಮುಾಂಕ ಶುಲ?ದ ಶುಲ?ದ ಶುಲ?ದ ಶುಲ?ದ ಬVೆW ಬVೆW ಬVೆW ಬVೆW ಕಾಟಕ ಕಾಟಕ ಕಾಟಕ ಕಾಟಕ ಮುಾಂಕ ಮುಾಂಕ ಮುಾಂಕ ಮುಾಂಕ ಾXY ಾXY ಾXY ಾXY 1957 ರರರರ ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ 31 ರನDಯ ರನDಯ ರನDಯ ರನDಯ Zಣಯ Zಣಯ Zಣಯ Zಣಯ \ಾ0ೊಡುವಂLೆ \ಾ0ೊಡುವಂLೆ \ಾ0ೊಡುವಂLೆ \ಾ0ೊಡುವಂLೆ ೋ"ರುLಾBೆ ೋ"ರುLಾBೆ ೋ"ರುLಾBೆ ೋ"ರುLಾBೆ. ಾಗೂ ಾಗೂ ಾಗೂ ಾಗೂ ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ.100/- ]ೕಯನುT ]ೕಯನುT ]ೕಯನುT ]ೕಯನುT ರ%ೕ^ ರ%ೕ^ ರ%ೕ^ ರ%ೕ^ ಸಂೆ) ಸಂೆ) ಸಂೆ) ಸಂೆ): 1348138 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 18/12/2015 ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು FಾವS6ರುLಾBೆ FಾವS6ರುLಾBೆ FಾವS6ರುLಾBೆ FಾವS6ರುLಾBೆ. ಸ_ಸಾದ ದCಾ&ೇಜನುT ಕೂಲಂಕುಶ&ಾG ಪ"%ೕ_ಸಾaತು. ಸದ"ಯವರ ಮನJಯ_ರುವಂLೆ ¸ÀzÀj ದCಾ&ೇಜು Hಾಂಕ: 17/10/2006 ರಂದು ಬBೆಯಲN1OದುY, Hಾಂಕ: 15/12/2015 ರಂದು ಾ)ಯ Zಣಯ \ಾಡಲು ಅ ಸ_6ರುವbದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂHದುY, ಒಂದು Sಂಗ.Gಂತ Kಾ6*ಾGರುವbದ"ಂದ ಕಾಟಕ ಮುಾಂಕ ಾXY 1957ರ ಕಲಂ 33 ರ0 ಇಂFೌಂe \ಾ0 ಪಕರಣವನುT ಕಲಂ 39 ರ0 LೆVೆದುೊಳRಾaತು. ಸದ" ಪತೆ? ಾನೂನು ಬದY&ಾG ಮುಾಂಕ ಶುಲ? FಾವSಸಲು Sಳ$ವ.ೆ ಇಲದ ಾರಣ ರCಾ&ೇಜು ಬBೆದ Hನದಂದು FಾವS6ರುವbHಲ. ಸದ"ಯವರು ಪಸುತ ಸದ" ಪತೆ? ಾನೂನು ಬದf&ಾG ಅನDಯ&ಾಗುವ ಮುಾಂಕ ಶುಲ?ವನುT FಾವSಸಲು ಒgN ಮನJ ಾಗೂ ಶಪತ ಪತವನುT ಈ ೆಳGನಂLೆ ಸ_6ರುLಾBೆ. I hereby declare that the aforesaid agreement was typed the stamp paper of Rs.200/- only without typing it on the proper stamp duty. Hence I have filed on application before this Hon'ble Authority praying to impound the same to collect duty and penalty. Along with my application I have produced copy of the sale agreement Dated: 17.10.2006 along with my application, since the original is produced in O.S.No. 10124/2015 which I have filed to enforce the said sale agreement. Since I have filed the copy of the said application this authority was pleased to call me to produce the original. As I have only produce the copy of the sale agreement Dated: 17.10.2006 this Hon'ble Authority was pleased to asked me to sworn an affidavit to that effect. Hence this affidavit. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11455 WP No. 12817 of 2020 "ಅzÀರಂLೆ ಪಕರಣದ_ಯ ಸDತು ಸ&ೆ ನಂB 87, ಪಣತೂರು Vಾಮ, ವತೂರು ೋಬ., 9ೆಂಗಳ:ರು ಪjವ Lಾಲೂಕು ರ 1 ಎಕBೆ ಮತು 25 ಗುಂkೆಗಳ Fೈm 35 ಗುಂkೆಗಳ J6ೕಣJರುವ ಜEೕZನ ಬVೆW %ೕಮw. ಉ\ಾnಾಂS ರವರು ಅಾರBಾದ %ೕ =.ಆ>.oಾಸ?> ರವ"Vೆ \ಾ0ೊ1Oರುವ ಕಯದ ಕBಾರು ಪತ&ಾGರುತೆ. ಸದ" ಕಯದ ಕBಾರು ಪತವನುT ಪ"%ೕ_ಸಾG, ಅಾರ"Vೆ ಸDSನ CಾD!ೕನ Zೕ0ರುLಾBೆ. ಆದY"ಂದ, ಸದ" ಕಯದ ಕBಾರು ಪತೆ? ಕಾಟಕ ಮುಾಂಕ ಾXY 1957ರ ಅನುpೆqೕದ 5 (e)(i) ರಂLೆ nೇಕಡ 5 ರಂLೆ ಮುಾಂಕ ಶುಲ?ವನುT ಆಕ"ಸ9ೇಾGರುತೆ. ಕಯದ ಕBಾರು ಬBೆದು ೊಟO Hಾಂಕದಂದು ಇದYಂತಹ pಾ_ \ಾರುಕkೆO 9ೆೆ ಪ1OಯಂLೆ ಸDSನ \ೌಲ)ವb ರೂ.2,62,500/-ಗsಾGದುY, ದCಾ&ೇನ_ ಕಯದ ಕBಾ"ನ_ ಕಯದ tಬಲಗು ರೂ.13,13,000/-ಗಳ$ pಾ_ಯ_ದY \ಾಗಸೂu 9ೆೆ ಪ1Oಯ ದರm?ಂತಲೂ ೆpಾvGರುವbದ"ಂದ, ಪತದ_ ನಮೂH6ರುವ ರೂ.13,13,000/- ಗಳನುT ಗಣೆVೆ LೆVೆದುೊಂಡು ಸದ" \ೌಲ)ೆ? ಮುಾಂಕ ಶುಲ? nೇಕಡ 7.5% ರಂLೆ ರೂ: 98,480/- ಗಳ$ ಾಗೂ ಕಾಟಕ ಮುಾಂಕ ಾXY 1957ರ ಕಲಂ 39/2 ರಂLೆ ಅಾರರು ಸDಯಂ Fೇರ ೆaಂದ FಾವSಸಲು ಒgNರುವಂLೆ ದಂಡ ರೂ.98,480/- ಗಳ$ Cೇ" ಒಟುO ರೂ.1,96,960/- ಗಳ Fೈm ಈVಾಗೇ ಸದ" ಕBಾರನುT ರೂ: 200/- ಗಳ ಉಬwಚುv ಾಗದದQೕೆ ಮುH6ರುವbದನುT ಕsೆದು ಉ.ದ ರೂ: 1,96,760/- ಗಳನುT FಾವSಸ9ೇಕು ಎಂದು ಅxFಾa6ೆ. ಈ ಆೇಶ ತಲgದ 15 Hವಸಗಳ ಒಳVೆ Qೕಲ?ಂಡ ಮುಾಂಕ ಶುಲ?ವನುT FಾವS6, ಮೂಲ ದCಾ&ೇಜನುT ಾಜರುಪ06ದ_ ಕಾಟಕ ಮುಾಂಕ ಾXY 1957ರ ಕಲಂ 41 ರನDಯ ದೃyೕಕ"ಸಾಗುವbದು." 8. Thus, it is seen from the order that the petitioner/plaintiff has sought for determination of the stamp duty payable on the instrument in terms of Section 31 of the Act which has been adjudicated by the District Registrar in exercise of his powers under Section 33 read with Section 39 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:11455 WP No. 12817 of 2020 9. Counsel for the petitioner also insists that in the said order District Registrar has taken into consideration the value of the property as on the date of entering into agreement of sale and the value actually mentioned in the said deed of sale which is almost six times higher than the actual market value of property. He submits that the plaintiff had indeed paid the stamp duty on the value which was far in excess than the market guidance value then prevalent. 10. The Trial Court however in the impugned order has held that since the sale agreement was dated 17.10.2006 and the stamp duty was required to be paid within one month thereof, since the determination of deficit stamp duty is at Rs.98,475/- penalty 10 times of which is required to be paid. The Trial Court has come to the above conclusion on the premise that the stamp duty paid by the petitioner in terms of Annexure-C referred to above was one without authority of law, inasmuch as, once the suit was filed based on the document, it was only the Trial Court which had the jurisdiction to impound and determine the stamp duty payable and none else. This view taken by the Trial Court appears to be contrary to the law settled by the Apex Court has rightly pointed out by the counsel - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:11455 WP No. 12817 of 2020 for the petitioner. The Apex Court in the case of SEETHARAMA SHETTY (supra), while dealing with a situation of impounding of the document under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 at paragraph 21.1.1 has held as under; "21.1.1. The person who intends to rely on an insufficiently/improperly stamped instrument has option to submit to the scope of Section 34 of the Act, pay duty and penalty. The party also has the option to directly move an application under Section 39 of the Act before the District Registrar and have the deficit stamp duty and the penalty as may be imposed collected. In either of the cases, after the deficit stamp duty and the penalty are paid, the impounding effected under Section 35 of the Act is released and the instrument available to the party for relying as evidence. In the event, a party prefers to have the document sent to the deputy commissioner for collecting the deficit stamp duty and penalty, the Court/Every Person has no option except to send the document to the District Registrar. The caveat to the above is that, before the Court/Every Person exercises the jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act, the option must be exercised by a party." 11. From the above it is clear that a party intending to produce a document has an option to have the document adjudicated before the same is impounded under Section 34 of the Act, which is the case at hand. In other words within 5 days of filing of the suit, the petitioner/ plaintiff had made an application under Section 31 of the Act which is well permissible and the same was got adjudicated under Section 33 read with - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:11455 WP No. 12817 of 2020 Section 39 of the Act. Thus, by the time the Trial Court purportedly exercise its power under Section 34 of the Act, the documents in question had already been adjudicated and the stamp duty had already been paid. 12. The reliance placed on by the counsel for the respondents to the judgement of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. DYAVAMMA ALIAS SANNA MUKKAMMA VS. SMT. BALAMMA AND OTHERS is not applicable to the facts of this case, inasmuch as, there was no adjudication of payment of stamp duty under Sections 31, 33 or 39 of the Act in the said matter as it is in the case at hand. Thus, in the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter and in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of SEETHARAMA SHETTY (supra) extracted hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.10.2020 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.10124/2015 is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to take the document on record and proceed in accordance with law. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1