- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7445 WP No. 103022 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 103022 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI RAGHU S/O. VASUDEV NAIK, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL WORKER, R/O. TELANG ROAD, NAIKA WADA, NANDAGADDA, KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI JAGANNATH SHANTARAM KAMAT, SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S. 1. SMT. KAVITA W/O. JAGANNATH KAMAT, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NEAR BRAHMA KATTA, KAJUBAG, KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 ARE THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED R1 AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT VIDE ORDER DATED 12.03.2024. 2. PRASHANT S/O. JAGANNATH KAMAT, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. NEAR BRAHMA KATTA, KAJUBAG, KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 3. SHEETAL W/O. SANJAY NACHINOLKAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BHARTIYA CITY, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, HEGDE NAGAR, BANGALORE-560064. VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7445 WP No. 103022 of 2024 4. AKUL PURSHOTAM DHOPLE, AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT , R/O. NEAR BRAHMA KATTA, KAJUBAG, KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KARWAR IN O.S NO.152/2015 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner, who was the plaintiff before the Trial Court, to set aside the order dated 23.11.2017, passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Karwar, in O.S.No.152/2015. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, he has filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 18.06.2015 against the respondents to enforce the agreement of sale dated 18.06.2015. During the pendency of the said proceedings, on the petitioner-plaintiff producing the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7445 WP No. 103022 of 2024 agreement of sale dated 18.06.2015, the same was impounded by the trial Court. The trial Court calculated the stamp duty to be paid at Rs.2,80,000/- deducting Rs.100/-, which was paid on stamp duty, ten times penalty was imposed as deficit stamp duty and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.30,78,900/- by the impugned order. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner- plaintiff approached the appellate Court, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial Court order, aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court questioning the same. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Prashant S. Hosmani that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the well established principles and the same requires to be set aside as it is erroneous. It is further contended that the trial Court has passed a cryptic order without any good ground or reasoning and without considering the relevant provisions of The Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) by imposing penalty of ten times. He further contends that, since there is no proper and sound reasons for imposition of ten times penalty and the petitioner having been not heard while - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7445 WP No. 103022 of 2024 imposing such penalty of ten times, the impugned order is vitiated and the same requires to be set aside. He relies upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Seetharama Shetty v. Monappa Shetty1 and in the case of Shakeel Pasha & Ors. v M/s City Max Hotels India Pvt. Ltd.2 along with the Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.102296/2022. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents Sri. Girish Yadawad contends that the present petition itself is not maintainable as it is barred by law of limitation so also on the ground of suppression of material facts. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has not stated the true facts before this Court. He contends that on 05.07.2016, the trial Court passed an order directing the office to send the document i.e. impounded sale agreement to the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps and District Registrar for calculation of stamp duty and penalty. Based on this order of the trial Court, the document was sent to the Deputy 1 2024 SCC Online SC 2320 2 Civil Appeal Nos.2139-2140/2024 DD on 12.02.2024 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7445 WP No. 103022 of 2024 Commissioner of Stamps and District Registrar for calculation of the deficit stamp duty and penalty. Learned counsel for the respondents files a few documents along with an application for vacating stay wherein he has relied upon Annexure-R1, which is a report sent by the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps and District Registrar, whereby he has calculated the deficit stamp duty along with penalty and submitted the same to the trial Court stating that the petitioner-plaintiff is liable to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty of Rs.27,99,000/-. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner filed an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure questioning the order passed by the trial Court on 23.11.2017 directing the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and penalty of Rs.30,78,900/- before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karwar, in Miscellaneous Appeal No.17/2019. The appeal came to be dismissed as not maintainable and the appellate Court passed an order confirming the deficit stamp duty and penalty imposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps and District Registrar. Learned counsel contends that, this order, which is passed by the appellate Court dismissing the very same impugned order - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7445 WP No. 103022 of 2024 as not being maintainable confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps and District Registrar dated 07.02.2020, has not been questioned till date and the present petition is filed in the year 2024 after a period of 4 years without explaining any reasons for the delay. Therefore, on these grounds, he submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.M. Theerthegowda v. Y.M. Ashok Kumar and Ors.3 so also the judgment of this Court in the case of Digambar Warty and others v District Registrar, Bangalore Urban District and another4. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondents- defendants. 7. There is no dispute with regard to an unstamped document being impounded by the trial Court and the same 3 AIR ONLINE 2024 SC 590 4 ILR 2013 KAR 2099 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7445 WP No. 103022 of 2024 being sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps and District Registrar for calculation of stamp duty and penalty on being impounded. It is also a matter on fact and record that, upon referring, the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps and District Registrar has given a report recommending imposition of ten times penalty based on the provisions of the Act. Subsequently when the report was placed before the trial Court, the trial Court has passed an order on 23.11.2017 accepting the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps and District Registrar and imposed stamp duty and penalty of 10 times amounting to Rs.30,78,900/- and directed the stamp duty and penalty to be paid within 15 days. (a) Section 33 of the Act deals with Examination and impounding of instruments. (b) Section 34 of the Act deals with Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence (c) Section 35 of the Act deals with Admission of instrument where not to be questioned (d) Section 36 of the Act deals with Admission of improperly stamped instruments - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7445 WP No. 103022 of 2024 (e) Section 37 of the Act deals with Instruments impounded how dealt with (f) Section 38 of the Act deals with (Deputy Commissioner’s) power to refund penalty paid under sub-section(1) of Section 37 (g) Section 39 deals with (Deputy Commissioner’s) power to stamp instruments impounded 8. In the present case on hand, the document has been rightly referred by the trial Court to the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps and District Registrar for calculation of the deficit stamp duty and penalty as contemplated under Section 34(a) of the Act which again contemplates imposition of stamp duty and penalty of sum equal to ten times. On referring the matter, the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps and District Registrar recommended imposition of ten times of penalty along with the deficit stamp duty. The trial Court on receipt of such report/calculation from the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps and District Registrar, passed an order dated 23.11.2017 imposing the same deficit stamp duty and penalty in all amounting to Rs.30,78,900/-. It is the grievance of the petitioner-plaintiff that while the Deputy - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7445 WP No. 103022 of 2024 Commissioner of Stamps and District Registrar imposed the penalty, he was not heard with regard to imposition of lesser penalty and also while the impugned order was passed by the trial Court, no opportunity was given to the petitioner with regard to lesser penalty being imposed other than ten times penalty imposed/recommended by the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps and District Registrar and imposed by the trial Court. It is on this short question, the petitioner is before this Court. 9. Having perused the impugned order and records placed before the Court, I do not find any error or procedural irregularity in the trial Court referring the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps and District Registrar for calculation of the stamp duty and penalty on it impounding the unstamped sale agreement so also the recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps and District Registrar for imposition of ten times penalty along with deficit stamp duty. The trial Court on receipt of the recommendation for imposition of penalty ought to have given a hearing to the petitioner and the respondent. While deciding the penalty of ten times, it is for the Court to hear the petitioner on the principle of audi - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7445 WP No. 103022 of 2024 alteram partem and then decide whether the penalty so recommended of ten times be maintained and continued and reasons ought to have been recorded by the trial Court which has not been done in the present case. 10. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that he ought to have been heard by the trial Court while imposing the penalty of ten times. Whether he succeeds or not, it is a different matter. So also I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent that, the quantum of penalty is primarily between the authority/Court and the opposing party has little role to discharge as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.M. Theerthegowda (supra). But when the authority has recommended the penalty and the Court is agreeing with the said penalty, an opportunity of hearing the petitioner ought to have been given and based on said opportunity, the trial Court ought to have proceeded further which in the present case has not been done. Therefore, it is necessary that the matter is sent back to the trial Court to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-plaintiff on the basis of the recommendation made by - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7445 WP No. 103022 of 2024 the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps and District Registrar for imposition of ten times penalty along with the stamp duty and pass reasoned order. 11. Under the circumstances, I pass the following order: This petition is allowed to the limited extent of the trial Court providing an opportunity of hearing the petitioner-plaintiff and so also the respondent-defendant on imposition of ten times penalty. It is needless to mention that the trial Court shall proceed further on the basis of the recommendation already made by the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps and District Registrar. It is only for the purpose of an opportunity that is to be provided, this matter is remanded. The trial Court shall strictly adhere to the provisions of the Act as stated hereinabove so also with regard to the stamp duty and penalty and pass suitable orders in an expeditious manner not later than one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the recommendation - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7445 WP No. 103022 of 2024 expressed by the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps and District Registrar. In view of the fact that the petitioner has kept quite from the year 2020 after the dismissal of Miscellaneous Appeal questioning the very same order and approached this Court after 4 years without even pleading or making a whisper about the delay, the petitioner is liable to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) which shall be paid to the respondent on the next date of hearing before the trial Court. In view of the fact that original suit is of the year 2015, more than 10 years old, the trial Court shall dispose of the matter expeditiously on priority. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GAB, Kmv from para 2 till end CT-MCK