- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4271 WP No. 104917 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 104917 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MADHU VAIJU CHALAVETKAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: H.NO.96, MAHADEV GALLI, HINDALGA, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-591 108. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI GUNDU SHATTU KOLKAR, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: FURNITURE WORK, R/O: SIDDHARTH COLONY, HINDALAGA, BELAGAVI-591 108. 2. MANGAL BABURAO LANDE, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: PADAMAJA APARTMENT, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, SADASHIV NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590 001. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, DISTRICT REGISTRATION OFFICE, D.C. COMPOUND, BELAGAVI-590 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R3; R1 TO R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4271 WP No. 104917 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Vitthal S.Teli., counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Mala.B.Bhute., AGA for respondent No.3 have appeared in person. 2. Notice to the respondents was ordered on 05.12.2022. A perusal of the office notice depicts that respondents 1 and 2 are served and unrepresented. They have neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 3. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of certiorari to quash the orders on the Admissibility of insufficiently stamped documents dated 11.11.2021 and 14.12.2021 passed by the Court of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Belagavi in O.S.NO. 1012/2013 vide Annexure-D and a Writ of certiorari to quash the report bearing No. STP - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4271 WP No. 104917 of 2022 /69/2021-22 dated 03.12.2021 issued by the third respondent vide Annexure-E. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 5. The short facts are these. The plaintiff filed a suit for Specific performance of the Contract dated 18.02.1999 in O.S.No.1012/2013. The total consideration was Rs.56,000/- and the plaintiff paid earnest money of Rs.40,000/- and defendant No 1 agreed to receive the balance amount of Rs.16,000/- in April 1999. It is said that the defendant received Rs.11,000/- on 22.03.1999 and executed an unregistered Sale Deed and in part performance of the contract put the plaintiff in the actual possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendants appeared through counsel and filed a written statement. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed IA NO 3 for the production of a document and the same was allowed vide order dated 11.11.2021. The Trial Court on the same day, passed the order and thereby impounded the agreement for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4271 WP No. 104917 of 2022 sale dated 18.02.1999 and the unregistered sale deed dated 22.03.1999 stating that they were insufficiently stamped. The Trial court directed the Office to call for the report from the District Registrar. Under the Court order, the District Registrar gave a report. Taking note of the report of the Registrar, the Trial Court vide order dated 14.12.2021 ordered to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs.1650/- on an agreement for sale and Rs. 1,15,100/- on an unregistered sale deed without providing an opportunity to the petitioner to file objections to the report of the District Registrar. It is said that the Trial Court directed the plaintiff to deposit the amount of Rs.1,28,260/- deficit stamp duty and penalty. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of the writ petition. 6. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 7. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not require reiteration. The issue falls around a narrow compass and relates to payment of stamp duty and penalty. Suffice it to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4271 WP No. 104917 of 2022 note that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and produced an agreement for sale and an unregistered sale deed. The Trial Court impounded the said instruments on the ground that they were not duly stamped. It is pivotal to note that after impounding the instruments, the Trial Court instead of sending the documents to the District Registrar, called the report from the District Registrar regarding stamp duty prevailed in 1999. After receipt of the report, the Trial court directed the plaintiff to pay the stamp duty and penalty. The procedure adopted by the Trial Court is contrary to the well-settled principles of law. Needless to say, once the instruments/ documents are impounded, the Trial Court must direct the office to send the original documents to the District Registrar for showing stamp duty and collecting penalty for the documents. I may venture to say that, the Trial Court has not adhered to the provisions of law. Furthermore, the Trial Court did not provide an opportunity for the plaintiff to file objections to the report of the District Registrar and without a hearing the plaintiff directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,28,260/- as deficit stamp duty and penalty. In my view, the Trial Court has failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4271 WP No. 104917 of 2022 8. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order on Admissibility of insufficiently stamped documents dated:11.11.2021 and order dated:14.12.2021 in O.S.No.1012/2013 passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Belagavi vide Annexure-D is quashed and consequently the report bearing No.STP/69/2021-22 dated:03.12.2021 issued by the third respondent vide Annexure-E is also quashed. 9. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, all pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and the interim order if any granted by this Court stands discharged. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 65