- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51459 WP No. 7107 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO.7107 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. VINAY BASAVARAJ SURPUR S/O BASAVARAJ SURPUR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.209 B M GREENWOOD APARTMENT DODDAKANNELI, SARJAPUR ROAD, CARMEL RAM POST BENGALURU -560 035 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N G PHADKE., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. KUPPUSWAMY D S/O DORAISWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.13 SATYA NILAYA MARAPPA ROAD, JOGU PALYA HALASOOR BENGALURU - 560 008 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.SURESH KUMAR., ADVOCATE - ABSENT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY ORDER OR WRIT, SETTING ASIDE / QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 26.2.2020 AT ANNEXURE-M PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH- 9, IN O.S.NO.6054/2016 AND ETC THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51459 WP No. 7107 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 26.02.2020 passed on IA.no.9 and the order dated 19.06.2020 passed in O.S.No.6054/2016 by the Court of XXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Suit in O.S.No.6054/2016 is filed by the petitioner herein for recovery of money. In the said suit, IA.no.9 was filed by the defendant under Sections 33 & 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'), with a prayer to impound the agreement for sale dated 18.10.2010 at Ex.P-2 and the consent agreement dated 31.05.2015 at Ex.P-2, for the reason that the said documents were insufficiently stamped. 4. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff. 5. The Trial Court vide the order impugned dated 26.02.2020, has allowed IA.no.9 and directed the office to calculate the stamp duty and penalty payable. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51459 WP No. 7107 of 2021 6. The office has, thereafter, calculated the applicable stamp duty and penalty payable and had put up a note that the plaintiff is liable to pay totally a sum of Rs.1,88,100/- towards deficit stamp duty and penalty on the aforesaid two documents. On 19.06.2020, the Trial Court has passed an order for payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, plaintiff is before this Court. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the point that arises for consideration with regard to the power of the court to impound the document after the same is marked, has been already considered by this Court in W.P.No.2383/2023 disposed of on 30.10.2025, and therefore, the order impugned dated 26.02.2020 to the said extent does not call for any interference. However, the Trial Court has erred in directing the Registry to determine the deficit stamp duty and penalty payable on the documents in question in view of Section 37(2)of the Act. He, therefore, prays that to the said extent the order impugned dated 26.02.2020 may be set aside. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51459 WP No. 7107 of 2021 6. It is not in dispute that the documents in question viz., Exs.P-1 & P-2 are insufficiently stamped. It is under these circumstances, the Trial Court after having held that the documents viz., Exs.P-1 & P-2 are insufficiently stamped, has allowed IA.no.9 and has ordered to impound the said documents. The said order has been questioned by the petitioner before this Court on the ground that since the documents are already marked, in view of Section 35 of the Act, the Trial Court was not justified in exercising its powers under Sections 33 & 34 of the Act. The said question has been considered by this Court in W.P.No.2383/2020, wherein it is held that, notwithstanding the marking of any document, if it is found that the said document is insufficiently stamped and while marking the document the said aspect of the matter was not considered by the court, it is always open for the court even at a later stage to exercise its powers under Sections 33 & 34 of the Act. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order impugned dated 26.02.2020 in so far as it relates to impounding documents is concerned, does not call for any interference. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51459 WP No. 7107 of 2021 7. The Trial Court having impounded the aforesaid two documents, has directed the Registry to determine the deficit stamp duty and penalty payable and in compliance of the said order, the Registry has put up a note that the plaintiff is liable to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty at Rs.1,88,100/- on the aforesaid two documents. Subsequently, the Trial Court by order dated 19.06.2020, has directed the plaintiff to pay the said deficit stamp duty and penalty determined by the Registry. To the said extent, the order impugned cannot be sustained in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SEETHARAMA SHETTY VS MONAPPA SHETTY - AIR 2024 SC 5327. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the documents impounded should be forwarded to the District Registrar/Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of determining and collecting the applicable deficit stamp duty and penalty on the impounded documents. Under the circumstances, to the said extent, the order impugned needs to set aside. Accordingly, the following order: 8. Writ petition is allowed in part. The order dated 26.02.2020 passed on IA.no.9 in O.S.No.6054/2016 by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51459 WP No. 7107 of 2021 Court of XXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is confirmed to impounding of Exs.P-1 & P-2 is concerned, and it is set aside in so far as it relates to directing the Registry to determine the deficit stamp duty and penalty. The further order dated 19.06.2020 passed by the Trial Court directing the plaintiff to pay penalty and deficit stamp duty as determined by the Registry is also set aside. The Trial Court is directed to forward the impounded document to the concerned District Registrar/Deputy Commissioner for determination and collection of deficit stamp duty and penalty as applicable. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK