- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010135032022 NC: 2026:KHC:36520 W.P. No.6404/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.6404/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. B.K. SURAJ SETTY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 2. B.K. VIVEK AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. BOTH ARE CHILDREN OF B.S. KRISHNAMURTHY R/AT NO.285/B-12, KUSHI, 9TH MAIN, V BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560041. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V. JAVAHAR BABU, ADV.,) AND: 1. MR. ANAND T.G. AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O SHIVARAJ T.G. NO.20, BUILDING NO.54 KHB COLONY KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN BENGALURU-560060. ALSO AVAILABLE AT NO.F-4, I FLOOR SESHAMAHAL BUILDING MUNICIPAL NO.18 SRI. VASAVI TEMPLE STREET Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010135032022 NC: 2026:KHC:36520 W.P. No.6404/2022 V V PURAM BANGALORE-560004. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001. [AMENDED AS PER ORDER DTD:03.09.2024] …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, AGA FOR R2 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 H/S V/C/O DTD:01.09.2025) ******* THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DTD. 07.01.2022 PASSED BY THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE IN O.S. 3300/2020 PRODUCED VIDE ANNX-A & ETC. THIS PETITION, 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 This writ petition is filed seeking for the following prayer: “Issue a writ of certiorari or any other Writ/Order/Direction quashing order dated 7.1.22 passed by the VII Additional City Civil Judge, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010135032022 NC: 2026:KHC:36520 W.P. No.6404/2022 Bangalore in OS 3300/2020 produced vide Annexure- A.” 2. Sri.V.Javahar Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed a suit for ejectment. In the said suit, the Trial Court has passed the impugned order under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'), by ordering to impound the lease agreement dated 01.11.2006 on the ground that it is insufficiently stamped. It is submitted that the Trial Court has committed a grave error in directing the office to calculate the duty and penalty on the lease agreement dated 01.11.2006 as the said instrument was available before the Trial Court however, the plaintiffs have not relied on the said instrument as evidence. Hence, impounding may be correct but the order to pay the duty and penalty is impermissible unless it is tendered as evidence as per the Act. It is further submitted that the said aspect has been rightly considered by this Court in the case of - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010135032022 NC: 2026:KHC:36520 W.P. No.6404/2022 K.AMARNATH Vs. SMT.PUTTAMMA1. It is also submitted that the order of the Trial Court was stayed by this Court on 09.09.2022 and thereafter, the suit was decreed on 17.11.2023. However, the Trial Court despite the order of stay of the impugned order, observed that the decree would be drawn only after the payment of duty and penalty. Hence, this writ petition survives and the impugned order requires to be set aside. 3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 supports the order of the Trial Court and submits that admittedly, the instrument in question is insufficiently stamped. Hence, the Court having the jurisdiction has rightly impounded and the plaintiff is liable to pay the duty and 10 times penalty which has been rightly observed by the Trial Court. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 1 ILR 1999 KAR 4634 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010135032022 NC: 2026:KHC:36520 W.P. No.6404/2022 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioners filed O.S.No.3300/2020 for the relief of eviction against the respondent No.1. In the said suit, along with the plaint, the petitioners have produced the lease agreement dated 01.11.2006. The said agreement is admittedly on the stamp paper of Rs.100/-. Considering the said aspect, the Trial Court noticed that the instrument is insufficiently stamped as the lease agreement is for a period of 3 years. The Trial Court, while exercising the power under Section 33 of the Act, has impounded the said document on the ground that the instrument is insufficiently stamped. In my considered view, the order of the Trial Court is in consonance with law. It is required to be noticed that the Trial Court, under the impugned order, further directed the office to calculate - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010135032022 NC: 2026:KHC:36520 W.P. No.6404/2022 the duty and penalty on the lease agreement dated 01.11.2006 which is contrary to Section 34 of the Act. A perusal of Section 34 of the Act, makes it clear that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted by the Court in the evidence for any purpose. In the case on hand, admittedly, the lease agreement dated 01.11.2006 impounded by the Trial Court is not produced as evidence. Hence, its admissibility would not arise. It is further required to be noticed that Section 34 of the Act, makes an obligation on the Court not to admit the said insufficiently stamped instrument in the evidence unless the said duty and penalty is paid by the person who intends to place reliance on the said document as evidence. In the case on hand, the plaintiff is admittedly not seeking admission of the lease agreement as evidence. Hence, the order passed by the Trial Court for payment of duty and penalty is impermissible. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010135032022 NC: 2026:KHC:36520 W.P. No.6404/2022 6. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 07.01.2022 passed in O.S.No.3300/202 by the VII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, impounding the lease agreement dated 01.11.2006 is sustained, by setting aside the portion of the order insofar as payment of duty and penalty is concerned. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34