HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6100 WP No. 19586 of 2021 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 19586 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: K.B.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY S/O BYRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.14, 2ND CROSS, JAIBHEEMA NAGAR, BTM-1ST STAGE, BENGALURU-560 068. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.O.CHANDRA SHEKAR., ADVOCATE) AND: C.BYRAPPA S/O LATE CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT THARALU VILLAGE AND POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 082. …RESPONDENT THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 20.09.2021 PASSD ON I.A. NO.3 IN O.S.NO.1330/2014 BY THE HONBLE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6100 WP No. 19586 of 2021 -2- THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. None appears for the respondent despite service. 2. The challenge in the present petition is to an order dated 20.09.2021 passed in O.S.No.1330/2014 by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District at Bengaluru (hereinafter ‘Impugned Order’). By the Impugned Order, General Power of Attorney has been impounded and penalty of ten times on the documents in terms of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 has been imposed. 3. The record reflects that no notice has been issued in this matter till date. This Court had on the last date of hearing, passed the following order: “2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his challenge in the present appeal is limited to the ground that the Court could not have imposed such a penalty, but the penalty could have only been imposed by the Deputy Commissioner. In this behalf he seeks to rely upon a HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6100 WP No. 19586 of 2021 -3- judgment of the co-ordinate bench of this court in Dr.S.Vidhya Vs. R.S.Venkata Reddy.1 3. The attention of the learned counsel is drawn to the provisions of Section 33 of the Act, which reads as under: “33. Examination and impounding of instruments. (1)Every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in charge of a public office, except an officer of police, before whom any instrument, chargeable in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same. (2) For that purpose every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him, in order to ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law in force in the [State of Karnataka] [Adapted by the Karnataka Adaptations of Laws Order, 1973 w.e.f. 1.11.1973] when such instrument was executed or first executed: Provided that : ……” [Emphasis supplied] 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment that he is relying on says otherwise. 5. Concededly, a plain reading of the statute shows that every person having by law the authority to receive evidence can, when a document is produced before them, if not duly stamped, can impound the same. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner requests for some time to further examine the law in this behalf and make his submissions”. 1 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5065 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6100 WP No. 19586 of 2021 -4- 4. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is some calculation error in the stamp duty calculation made by him before the learned Trial Court. He seeks liberty to withdraw this petition with liberty to file an application setting out the error, before the learned Trial Court. 5. The petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner is however at liberty to file appropriate application setting out the errors in calculation, if any, before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court shall decide such an application filed in accordance with law. 6. The rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be decided by the learned Trial Court. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE SNB/BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA