- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010500332022 NC: 2026:KHC:46824 W.P. No.21773/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.21773/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. RAJANNA S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT. ARADESHAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ROOPESHA B, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT. ARADESHAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562110. 2. SRI. S. SOMANNA S/O B.M. SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR NO.62, BYATARAYANAPURA BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 560092. 3. SMT. VIJAYAMMA W/O RAJANNA (WATERMAN) AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT. C/O RANGAMMA Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010500332022 NC: 2026:KHC:46824 W.P. No.21773/2022 THAMMENAHALLI ROAD GANAPATHYNAGARA ACHARYA COLLEGE ROAD CHIKKABANAVARA HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU 560090. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURURAJ KULKARNI, ADV., FOR C/R1 V/O/DTD:19.01.2023, NOTICE TO R2 & R3 ARE D/W) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.212/2014 PENDING ON THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BELUR. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 22.09.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.14 FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND I.A.NO.15 FILED U/S 33, 34 AND 58 OF KARNATAKA STAMP ACT R/W ORDER 13 RULE 8 AND SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S.NO.34/2009 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC DEVANAHALLI VIDE ANNEXURE-K & 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 - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010500332022 NC: 2026:KHC:46824 W.P. No.21773/2022 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 22.09.2022 passed on IA.Nos.14 and 15 in OS.No.34/2009 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Heard Sri.Roopesha B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Gururaj Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 3. Respondent No.1 filed a suit in OS.No.34/2009 seeking a judgment and decree of specific performance in respect of the agreements of sale dated 23.07.1994 and 28.05.1995. In the said suit, the petitioner has been arrayed as defendant No.1. The petitioner filed application in IA.No.14 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’), seeking amendment of the written statement. The said application was contested and the trial Court, by a - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010500332022 NC: 2026:KHC:46824 W.P. No.21773/2022 common order, dismissed the said application by dismissing IA.Nos.14 to 16. 4. It is to be noticed that the proposed amendment to the written statement was sought after a delay of 11 years. A perusal of the proposed amendment indicates that the petitioner seeks to contend that the suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff is not maintainable on the ground that the plaintiff is seeking enforcement of two agreements of sale in one suit. In my considered view, the said issue can be argued in the suit, and the proposed amendment is, therefore, unnecessary. The trial Court taking note of the same, has rightly dismissed the application. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order of the trial Court passed on IA.No.14. 5. Defendant No.1 has also filed IA.Nos.15 and 16 seeking to impound both the agreements of sale under Sections 33, 34 & 58 of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, (for short ‘the Act’) read with Order 13 Rule 8 and Section 151 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010500332022 NC: 2026:KHC:46824 W.P. No.21773/2022 of the CPC and to levy the requisite stamp duty with 10 times the penalty, on the ground that the agreements of sale are insufficiently stamped, unregistered and that the agreements of sale indicates delivery of possession. The trial Court, under the impugned order dismissed IA.Nos.15 and 16 on the ground that similar application had earlier been filed and that the said order had attained finality. 6. It is further to be noticed that the earlier application was filed by defendant No.2 and not by defendant No.1. Be that as it may, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M.Shahul Hameed v. Jayanthi R. Hegde1, has held that mere marking of an insufficiently stamped instrument, without there being any adjudication on the same, the question of impounding the instrument can be raised at any stage. 7. Keeping in mind the aforesaid enunciation of law, I am of the considered view that the impugned order 1 2024 7 SCC 719 - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010500332022 NC: 2026:KHC:46824 W.P. No.21773/2022 on IA.Nos.15 and 16 is liable to be set aside. The trial Court is directed to reconsider IA.Nos.15 and 16 in accordance with law, keeping in mind the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29