- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43276 WP No. 2960 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 2960 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O D. VASUDEV AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT BACHENAHATTI VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI MAGADI TALUK RAMANGAR - 562 120. …PETITIONER (BY SRI CHOKKAREDDY, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI ABHIRAM .P.S. S/O SHREERAM AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO. 33, 34,35 5TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 009. 2. SRI R. SHASHANK S/O S. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT MUNICIPAL NO.2464-VS 425 THIRUMALE HAND POST EXTENSION MAGADI TOWN, RAMANGARA - 562 120 AND ALSO RESIDING AT HEMAVATHI NILAYA NES EXTENSION, WARD NO.5 MAGADI TOWN RAMANGARA - 562 120. 3. SMT. SUSHEELA RAMESH S/O S. RAMESH Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43276 WP No. 2960 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS HEMAVATHI NILAYA NEX EXTENSION, WARD NO.5 MAGADI TOWN RAMANGAR - 562 120. 4. DISTRICT REGISTER RAMANAGAR DISTRICT NO.103, BASEMENT FLOOR DISTRICT OFFICE BUILDING BANGALORE MYOSRE RAOD, RAMANGAR TOWN - 562 159. 5. VARTHUR SUB REGISTRAR BM COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR MUTHUSANDRA ROAD VARTHUR, BANGALORE - 560 087. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VISHWANATHA K, ADV, ADV., FOR R-1; SMT. RADHA RAMASWAMY, AGA FOR R-4 & R-5; V/O/D 24.10.2025, NOTICE TO R-2 & R-3 IS D/W) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A, ORDER DTD 04.11.2023, IN O.S.NO.227/2020 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI, BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by defendant no.3 with a prayer to set aside the order dated 04.11.2023 passed on IA no.7 in O.S.No.227/2020 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43276 WP No. 2960 of 2024 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. O.S.No.227/2020 is filed by the jurisdictional Civil Court at Magadi, by respondent no.1 herein seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 04.09.2017. In the said suit, the contesting defendants have filed a detailed written statement opposing the prayer made in the suit. IA no.7 was filed by defendant no.3 under Sections 33 to 35 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'), with a prayer to impound the agreement for sale dated 04.09.2017 and to collect deficit stamp duty and penalty on the said document. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned, has rejected the said application and being aggrieved by the same, defendant no.3 is before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that stamp duty has been paid on the document in question after the suit was filed. Along with the suit, the plaintiff has filed a photostat copy of the document and subsequently he has approached the competent authority and has paid stamp duty. He submits that the competent authority ought to have collected the deficit - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43276 WP No. 2960 of 2024 stamp duty and penalty as provided under Section 33 of the Act, which is ten times the stamp duty that was liable to be paid. Therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting IA no.7 filed on behalf of defendant no.3. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of JAVER CHAND & ORS. VS PUKHRAJ SURANA - AIR 1961 SC 1655. 5. Learned Counsel for respondent no.1/plaintiff has argued in support of the order impugned and submits that the original sale agreement was produced before the Trial Court only after the same was duly stamped, and therefore, the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. 6. O.S.No.227/2020 is filed by respondent no.1 herein with a prayer for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 04.09.2017. Along with the plaint, only the photostat copy of the said document was produced. It appears that subsequently plaintiff had approached the competent authority and has paid the deficit stamp duly which is permissible under Section 39 of the Act. Thereafter, the said document was produced before the Trial Court and defendant no.3 had raised an objection and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43276 WP No. 2960 of 2024 had filed IA no.7 with a prayer to impound the said document and collect the deficit stamp duty and penalty on the document as provided under Section 33 of the Act. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SEETHARAMA SHETTY VS MONAPPA SHETTY - AIR 2024 SC 5327, in paragraph nos.21.1 & 21.1.1, has observed as under: "21.1. Section 33 of the Act is titled examination and impounding of instruments. The object of the provision is to disable persons from withdrawing the instruments produced by them on being told that proper stamp duty and penalty should be paid. 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43276 WP No. 2960 of 2024 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. 8. From a reading of the aforesaid, it is very clear that when a party makes a request to the court to forward the document to the competent authority so as to enable him to pay the deficit stamp duty, in such an event, the Trial Court has no other option but to refer the document to the competent authority to enable the party to pay the deficit stamp duty. In the said case, it is specifically observed that in such an event, the court cannot proceed under Section 33 of the Act and collect deficit stamp duty and ten times penalty as provided under Section 33 of the Act. In the present case, party has voluntarily approached competent authority and has paid the deficit stamp duty and penalty levied on him. 9. The Trial Court having appreciated the fact that the original of the document in question was produced before the court for the first time after having tendered the same before the competent authority for the purpose of collecting deficit stamp duty, has rightly observed that the same is permissible - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43276 WP No. 2960 of 2024 under Section 34 of the Act, and accordingly has rejected the application IA no.7 filed on behalf of the defendant. 10. The judgment in Javer Chand's case supra is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and it is trite that a judgment can be relied as a precedent only if it is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, and I do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK