- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4382 WP No. 377 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 377 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI M V BASAVARAJAPPA S/O ANGADI VEERABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, MAISTRY, (MASSION CONTRACTOR) R/O DOOR NO. 829/30 2ND MAIN, 4TH CROSS, SHIVAKUMARSWAMY BADAVANE DAVANGERE-577 004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. REVANNA BELLARY, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI K N SWAMY S/O LATE K.H. NARAYANARAO, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RTD. TEACHER, R/O GROUND FLOOR, D.NO.2345/34, 4TH CROSS, COLLEGE ROAD, NITUVALLI NEW EXTENSION, LENIN NAGAR, DAVANGERE - 577 002. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SREE HARSHA A.K., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTILCE 227 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 10.12.2025 AT ANNEXURE-H DIRECTED TO PAY DUTY AND PENALTY ON THE AGREEMENT DATED 23.12.2012 AT ANNEXURE-D ALLOWING IA-5 U/S 2(1)(VI) OF COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT R/W S.151 OF CPC AT ANNEXURE-F IN OS NO.32/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE COURT, DAVANGERE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4382 WP No. 377 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.32/2014 is directed against the impugned order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the Trial Court, whereby the application, I.A.No.5 filed by the petitioner- plaintiff under Section 2(1)(vi) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 r/w. Section 151 CPC was rejected by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondent-defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,36,000/- together with interest and for other reliefs. The respondent- defendant is contesting the suit. On 12.03.2018, the Trial Court passed an order directing the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty on the document dated 26.11.2012 produced by the plaintiff, pursuant to which the Registry of the Trial Court calculated the duty and penalty payable by the petitioner as Rs.1,67,200/- on 04.04.2018. Subsequently, petitioner filed the instant application, I.A.No.5 dated 14.11.2025 after lapse of more than seven years - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4382 WP No. 377 of 2026 seeking waiver of the said duty and penalty as directed by the Trial Court. The said application having been opposed by the respondents-defendants, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application by holding as under: “ORDER ON IA No.5 The counsel for the plaintiff has filed application U/Sec.2(1)(VI) of Commercial Courts Act R/w Sec.151 of CPC seeking the court to waive off the duty and penalty payable on the suit document agreement dt: 26.11.2012 by modifying the earlier order to pay the duty and penalty stating in the accompanying affidavit that the plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of money and to establish his case as produced an agreement dt: 26.11.2012 entered into between the plaintiff and defendant to construct the house and it comes under the definition of constructional infrastructure contract including tenders and this court ordered for the payment of the duty and penalty on the said agreement. After the said order is passed the commercial courts act came in to force on 23.10.2015 and thus under the commercial court act it is not necessary to pay any duty and penalty on the said document. Hence prayed to allow the application. 2. The Ld.Counsel for the defendant has objected the said application and submits that the Sec.2(1)(VI) of the commercial court act applies only to specific commercial disputes of a defined minimum value that are heard in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4382 WP No. 377 of 2026 commercial courts. Further that the present dispute is not a commercial dispute. It is further stated that the Hon’ble Appellate Court has stated in the order to provide an opportunity to the plaintiff to pay duty and penalty as per the earlier order dt: 12.03.2018 of this court. Hence prayed to dismiss the application. 3. Perused the IA. Heard arguments of Ld.counsel for the plaintiff and I have gone through the written arguments submitted by the Ld.Counsel for the defendant on IA no.5. 4. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of money and the suit was dismissed by this court on 01.04.2022 wherein the plaintiff preferred an appeal in RA No. wherein the Hon’ble 1st Appellate court remanded the suit with a direction to provide an opportunity to the plaintiff to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty on the agreement dt: 26.11.2012 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants. The Ld.counsel for the plaintiff submits that as per the commercial courts act-2015 there is no need to pay the stamp duty and penalty on the agreement entered into by the plaintiff and the defendant. It is significant to note that the commercial courts act came into force on 23.10.2015 and the said commercial courts act-2015 (and subsequent amendments 2018 applies prospectively and governs the cases filed after its commencement that is on 23.10.2015). 5. It is pertinent to note that the present suit isinstituted in the year 2014 and the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants dates back to 26.11.2012 and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4382 WP No. 377 of 2026 thus the question of the application of the commercial courts act-2015 to the present suit does not arise. Further the plaintiff has already filed an application under IA No.6 seeking to return the plaint to present before the commercial court which is already decided by this court and the same was dismissed by this court by observing that the specified value of the commercial court is more than three lakhs and thus the present suit does not fall within the realm of commercial courts. Thus the argument of the Ld.counsel for the plaintiff that the present suit and the transaction mentioned in the suit falls under the commercial courts act does not hold good. 6. The Ld.counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Mrs. Soni Dave V/s M/s Trans Asian Industries Expositions reported in AIR 2016 Delhi 186 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has discussed the determination of the specified value of the commercial courts act to determine the court fees and how the said act has to be read with the court fees act and suit valuation act in para No.22, 26 and 29 of the said decision. Further the counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Prl.District and sessions Court, Davanagere in Com. OS No.20/2022. 7. As already stated above the commercial court act does not apply to the case on hand as the present suit cannot be considered as a commercial suit before this court. Hence the aforesaid decisions are not applicable to the case on hand. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4382 WP No. 377 of 2026 8. Coming to the next contention of the plaintiff seeking to waive of the duty and penalty payable on the agreement dt: 26.11.2012 as per the order dt: 12.03.2018 of this court. It is profitable to quote and place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in WRIT PETITION No. 5075 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) wherein the Hon’ble High Court Of Karnataka relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SEETHARAMA SHETTY vs. MONAPPA SHETTY reported in AIR 2024 SC 5327, the trial court has no power to calculate the penalty and stamp duty. Under the same Act, they are to be referred to the competent authority, i.e., the District Registrar. The relevant portion relied upon by the learned counsel is extracted below: “ 21.8. The scheme does not prohibit a party to a document to first invoke directly the jurisdiction of the District Registrar and present the instrument before Court/Every Person after complying with the requirement of duty and penalty. In such an event, the available objection under Sections 33 or 34 of the Act is erased beforehand. The quantum of penalty is primarily between the authority/court and the opposing party has little role to discharge. 22. Reverting to the circumstances of thecase by keeping in perspective the steps summarised in the preceding paragraph, we notice that, before the stage of admission of the instrument in evidence, the respondent raised an objection on the deficit stamp duty. Therefore, it was the respondent who required the suit agreement to be impounded and then sent to the District Registrar to be dealt with under Section 39 of the Act. In this case, the respondent desired the impounding of the suit agreement and collect the deficit stamp duty and penalty. The trial court is yet to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act. On the contrary, the trial court has called for a report from the District Registrar, so for all purposes, the suit instrument is still at one or the other steps summed up in paragraph 21. Therefore, going by the request of the respondent, the option is left for the decision of the District - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4382 WP No. 377 of 2026 Registrar. Contrary to these admitted circumstances, though the suit instrument is insufficiently stamped, still the penalty of ten times under Section 34 of the Act is imposed through the impugned orders. The imposition of penalty of ten times at this juncture in the facts and circumstances of this case is illegal and contrary to the steps summed up in paragraph 21. The instrument is sent to the District Registrar, thereafter the District Registrar in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 39 of the Act, decides the quantum of stamp duty and penalty payable on the instrument. The appellant is denied this option by the impugned orders. It is trite law that the appellant must pay what is due, but as is decided by the District Registrar and not the Court under Section 34 of the Act. 23. Hence, for the above reasons, thedirection to pay ten times the penalty of the deficit stamp duty merits interference and accordingly is set aside. The trial court is directed to send the agreement of sale dated 29.06.1999 to the District Registrar to determine the deficit stamp duty and penalty payable. Upon receipt of the compliance certificate from the District Registrar, without reference to an objection under the Act, the suit document be received in evidence. All objections available to the respondents except the above areleft open for consideration.” 9. Thus it is clear from the aforesaid decision that this court does not have any powers in the calculation of the deficit stamp duty and penalty on a document and the court has to refer the same to the competent authority that is the District Registrar and on the receipt of the compliance certificate from the District Registrar the said document has to be received in evidence. In the instant case on hand the document that is the agreement dt: 26.11.2012 was impounded and the duty and penalty was calculated as per Article-5F and the plaintiff was directed to pay the said deficit stamp duty as per the order of this court dt: 12.03.2018 which the plaintiff failed to comply with. This court does not have powers to waive off the stamp duty and penalty imposed on the said document which the plaintiff wants to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4382 WP No. 377 of 2026 rely upon in the present suit. The courts does not have discretion to reduce penalties U/ Sec.34 of The Karnataka Stamp Act. The plaintiff is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum seeking the relief sought for the waiving of the stamp duty and penalty. Hence I found no grounds to allow the application filed by the plaintiff for waiving off the stamp duty and penalty. Hence I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The IA No.5 U/Sec.2(1)(VI) of Commercial Courts Act R/w Sec.151 of CPC filed by the plaintiff is hereby rejected. For additional evidence on behalf of plaintiff. Call On: 16.12.2025.” 4. As can be seen from the impugned order, the Trial Court has correctly and properly considered and appreciated the entire material on record and has recorded the correct finding that the Commercial Courts Act was not applicable to the instant suit and that the calculation of duty and penalty by the Trial Court was in accordance with law, by relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court referred to in the impugned order. The Trial Court has also taken note of the fact that by way of the instant application, I.A.No.5, the plaintiff intended to seek review of the earlier order dated 12.03.2018 passed by the Trial Court directing - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4382 WP No. 377 of 2026 the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty, that too after a lapse of more than seven years, which amounted to review, which was not only impermissible in law, but also barred by limitation and long and unexplained delay and latches and as such, the claim of the petitioner was liable to be rejected. 5. Upon re-appreciation, reconsideration and re-evaluation of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya & others – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19