- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23184 WP No. 2597 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 2597 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MOHAMMED SHOAIB, S/O.LATE HYDER SHERIFF, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT No.12, SGN LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, LALBAGH ROAD, OPP. PASSPORT OFFICE, WILSON GARDEN POST, BENGALURU-560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI R. BHADRINATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHAHIDA, W/O. LATE MAHABOOBALI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. SRI MOHAMMED SAGEER, S/O.LATE MAHABOOBALI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESPONDENTS No.1 & 2 ARE RESIDING AT No.26, 1ST B CROSS, 1ST FLOOR, SRI LAKSHMI NARASHIMA SWAMY NILAYA, FIRE WORK COLONY, J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU-560002. Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23184 WP No. 2597 of 2026 3. SMT. NOOR JAAN, W/O LATE HYDER SHERIFF, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 4. SRI MOHAMMED SUJATH, S/O.LATE HYDER SHERIFF, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 5. SRI MOHAMMED SIDDIQ, S/O.LATE HYDER SHERIFF, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, THE RESPONDENT No.3 TO 5 ARE R/AT No.12, SGN LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, LALBAGH ROAD, OPP. PASSPORT OFFICE, WILSON GARDEN POST, BENGALURU-560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ASGAR ALI KHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 (ABSENT); NOTICE TO R3 TO R5 DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10/12/2025 ON IA No.2 IN OS No. 1343 OF 2024 PASSED BY THE XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23184 WP No. 2597 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri R. Bhadrinath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This petition is filed by defendant No.2(b), aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10.12.2025 passed on I.A. No.II in O.S. No.1343/2024 on the file of the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Trial Court’), whereby the application filed under Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 read with Sections 114 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been rejected. 3. The suit is one for recovery of money. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Exs.P6 and P9 were marked without examining whether proper stamp duty had been paid on the said documents. It is contended that when an application was filed seeking to impound Exs.P6 and P9, the Trial Court erroneously rejected the same on the ground that, once the documents are marked, impounding is not permissible. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23184 WP No. 2597 of 2026 4.1 It is further submitted that it is the duty of the Court, at the time of marking the documents, to examine whether sufficient stamp duty has been paid thereon. In support of the said submission, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.M. Shahul Hammed v. Jayanthi R. Hegde, Civil Appeal No.1188/2015 dated 09.07.2024. 5. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents, even in the second round. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the findings recorded by the Trial Court, this Court is inclined to entertain the present writ petition. The Trial Court rejected the application seeking impounding on two grounds. Firstly, the documents were marked in the presence of the counsel for defendant No.1 and no objection was raised regarding the sufficiency of stamp duty paid thereon. Secondly, it held that once a document is marked, there is no provision to impound such marked document. 6.1. The Trial Court, while referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.M. Shahul Hammed (supra), has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23184 WP No. 2597 of 2026 observed that the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. However, the Trial Court has failed to examine the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court therein. It has been held that, irrespective of whether an objection is raised or not, the question of admissibility of a document has to be decided in accordance with law. The Presiding Officer of a Court, when confronted with the question of admitting an instrument chargeable with duty, but which is either unstamped or insufficiently stamped, is required to judicially determine the same. 6.2. For the sake of convenience, the relevant paragraph is extracted herein below: " 14. The presiding officer of a court being authorised in law to receive an instrument in evidence, is bound to give effect to the mandate of sections 33 and 34 and retains the authority to impound an instrument even in the absence of any objection from any party to the proceedings. Such an absence of any objection would not clothe the presiding officer of the court with power to mechanically admit a document that is tendered for admission in evidence. The same limitation would apply even in case of an objection regarding admissibility of an instrument, owing to its insufficient stamping, being raised before a court of law. Irrespective of whether objection is raised or not, the question of admissibility has to be decided according to law. The presiding officer of a court when - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23184 WP No. 2597 of 2026 confronted with the question of admitting an instrument chargeable with duty but which is either not stamped or is insufficiently stamped ought to judicially determine it. Application of judicial mind is a sine qua non having regard to the express language of sections 33 and 34 and interpretation of pari materia provisions in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 by this Court. However, once a decision on the objection is rendered – be it right or wrong – section 35 would kick in to bar any question being raised as to admissibility of the instrument on the ground that it is not duly stamped at any stage of the proceedings and the party aggrieved by alleged improper admission has to work out its remedy as provided by section 58 of the 1957 Act." 7. The finding recorded by the Trial Court is, prima facie, in contradiction to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to G.M. Shahul Hammed (supra). Though the application seeking impounding could have been considered by this Court in the present petition itself, having regard to the absence of representation on behalf of the respondents and further considering that the finding recorded by the Trial Court is, prima facie, contrary to the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Trial Court to reconsider the application. 8. In the light of the above findings, the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23184 WP No. 2597 of 2026 O R D E R (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order on I.A. No.II dated 10.12.2025 is set aside. (iii) I.A. No.II is restored to file of the trial Court. (iv) The trial Court shall re-adjudicate the application. (v) The contentions of both the parties are kept open. (vi) The trial Court, before proceeding further in the suit, shall decide the above application at the earliest. (vii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4