- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30315 W.P. No.20027/2021 C/W W.P. No.58010/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.20027/2021 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.58010/2016 (GM-CPC) IN W.P. No.20027/2021: BETWEEN: B. SRIVIDYA ADVOCATE D/O LATE BALASUNDARAM AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO 337, 15TH MAIN ROAD 2ND CROSS, 3RD STAGE, 1ST BLOCK UVCE LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARNAGAR BANGALORE 560079. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.S. VARADARAJAN, ADV.,) AND: SMT. MAMATHA W/O P. RAMAMURTHY REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.152/C, 1ST MAIN 3RD CROSS, ROBERTSON BLOCK RAMACHANDRAPURAM BANGALORE 560021. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADV.,) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30315 W.P. No.20027/2021 C/W W.P. No.58010/2016 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.03.2021 PASSED ON THE IA DATED 09.03.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 151 OF THE CPC IN O.S.6362/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE LXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) BANGALORE CITY AS PER ANNEXURE-A. ALLOW THE SAID IA FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.6362/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE LXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) BANGALORE CITY, AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION & ETC. IN W.P. NO.58010/2016: BETWEEN: SMT. V. MAMATHA W/O SRI. P. RAMAMURTHY REDDY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS NO.152/2C, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS ROBERTSON BLOCK RAMACHANDRAPURAM BENGALURU-560 021. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADV.,) AND: KUM. B. SRIVIDYA ADVOCATE D/O LATE BALASUNDARAM AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.337, 15TH MAIN ROAD 2ND CROSS, 3RD STAGE, 1ST BLOCK UVCE LAYOUT, BASAVESWARANAGAR BENGALURU-560 079. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.S. VARADARAJAN, ADV.,) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30315 W.P. No.20027/2021 C/W W.P. No.58010/2016 IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.27.9.2016 VIDE ANNEX-G1 PASSED IN SUIT BEARING O.S.NO.6362/2015 PASSED BY THE LXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY. DIRECT THE LXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY TO IMPOUND THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT OF SALE DTD.28.1.2015 PRODUCED IN O.S.NO.6362/2015 AND REFERE OR SEND THE SAME TO THE CONCERNED DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF STAMPS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957 FOR DETERMINATION OF THE STAMP DUTY & PENALTY & ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER WP.No.58010/2016 is filed challenging the order dated 27.09.2016 in OS.No.6362/2015 by the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, (CCH-65), (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. WP.No.20027/2021 is filed challenging the order dated 30.03.2021 in OS.No.6362/2015 by the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, (CCH-65), (for short ‘the trial Court’). - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30315 W.P. No.20027/2021 C/W W.P. No.58010/2016 3. Heard Sri.S.Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP.No.58010/2016 and Sri.M.S.Varadarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP.No.20027/2021. 4. Parties are referred as per the ranking before the trial Court. 5. Smt.V.Mamatha filed a suit in OS.No.6362/2015 against Smt.B.Srividya seeking the relief of specific performance of the contract dated 28.01.2015. In the said suit, the plaintiff produced an unregistered agreement of sale. The same was opposed by the defendant on the ground that the instrument was insufficiently stamped as the instrument indicates that portion of the physical property is handed over to the plaintiff. The trial Court vide order dated 22.07.2016, directed the office to calculate and assess the stamp duty payable on the instrument of deed of agreement dated 28.01.2015 filed by the plaintiff. The records indicate that the Registry has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30315 W.P. No.20027/2021 C/W W.P. No.58010/2016 raised doubt as to whether the duty and penalty were required to be calculated on the sale consideration of Rs.1,34,00,000/- shown in the agreement of sale or only with regard to the alleged portion of handing over of the physical possession. Thereafter, the trial Court, vide order dated 27.09.2016 directed the Registry to calculate the deficit stamp duty and penalty by considering the sale consideration of Rs.1,34,00,000/- as the basis. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff preferred W.P. No. 58010/2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the said writ petition has mainly contented that the trial Court ought not to have undertaken the responsibility of calculating the duty and penalty and instead, it ought to have referred the instrument to the concerned District Registrar, who is the competent authority to assist the alleged duty and penalty payable. 6. WP.No.20027/2021 is filed by the defendant challenging the order of the trial Court dated 30.03.2021, wherein the defendant’s application filed under Section - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30315 W.P. No.20027/2021 C/W W.P. No.58010/2016 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking recall of the order dated 17.03.2020 to discard Ex.P1 was rejected. The contention of Sri.Varadarajan M. S., learned counsel appearing for the defendant is that the trial Court ought to have kept in mind that the defendant from the inception was raising objection with regard to the insufficiency of stamp duty on the agreement of sale. It is submitted that in the absence of the defendant on the relevant date, the agreement of sale was marked as Ex.P1 on 17.03.2020, which is impermissible. It is further submitted that the issue with regard to the insufficiency of stamp duty is pending before the trial Court and the order of the trial Court was already assailed in WP.No.58010/2016. Therefore, the trial Court ought not to have marked the document as Ex.P1. Hence, the order dated 17.3.2020, marking the agreement of sale as Ex.P1 is required to be recalled till the duty and penalty are determined and paid accordingly. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30315 W.P. No.20027/2021 C/W W.P. No.58010/2016 7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court on judicious application of mind has come to a conclusion that the instrument was insufficiently stamped and directed the Registry to calculate the deficit stamp duty and penalty. Subsequently, the Registry has raised doubt with regard to the calculation of duty and penalty as to whether the calculation ought to be made on the entire sale consideration shown in the agreement of sale or is only with regard to the particular covenant which indicates the handing over of the physical possession. In my considered view, the trial Court instead of directing the Registry to calculate the duty and penalty, it would have been more appropriate to refer the agreement of sale including the receipt, acknowledgment and endorsement to the jurisdictional District Registrar to calculate the duty and penalty payable. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and defendant fairly concedes to the said suggestion. In view of the same, the trial Court is directed to refer the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30315 W.P. No.20027/2021 C/W W.P. No.58010/2016 agreement of sale, receipt, endorsement and acknowledgment to the jurisdictional adjudicatory authority for the purpose of calculation of proper stamp duty and penalty payable. 9. Insofar as the contention with regard to the marking of document is concerned, in my considered view, until the concerned adjudicatory authority renders its opinion with regard to duty and penalty payable and the payment is made by the plaintiff accordingly, it would not be appropriate for the trial Court to consider the agreement of sale as Ex.P1 and proceed in the matter. Hence, the impugned order dated 30.03.2021 passed on IA filed by the defendant is hereby set aside. The application filed by the defendant under Section 151 of CPC to recall the order dated 17.03.2020 is revived. The trial Court shall consider the said application once the adjudicatory authority takes a decision in the matter. With the aforesaid observation, both the writ petitions are disposed of. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30315 W.P. No.20027/2021 C/W W.P. No.58010/2016 The trial Court shall endure to dispose of the suit as early as possible once the opinion is received from the adjudicatory authority. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27