(BY SRI. SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE) v. R1-R2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

(BY SRI. SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE) … PETITIONER PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

#1. NINGAPPA S/O SANEPPA HARIJANA, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NANDAPUR, TQ: KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583 224.

#2. ASHOK SETTY S/O SUBBANNA SETTY, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TAVARAGERA, TQ: KUSTAGI, TQ: KOPPAL-583 229.

#3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL.

#4. DISTRICT REGISTRAR, D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL. (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R3-R4; R1-R2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) … RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4270 WP No. 102187 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri. Sadiq N.Goodwala., counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Mala.B.Bhute., AGA for respondents 3 and 4 have appeared in person.

#2. Emergent notice to the respondents was ordered on

20.06.2022. A perusal of the office notice depicts that respondents 1 and 2 are served and unrepresented. They have neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

#3. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated:01.06.2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge Kushtagi in O.S.No.1036/2015 vide Annexure-G.

#4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4270 WP No. 102187 of 2022

#5. The short facts are these: The plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of the specific performance. After the service of the summons the defendant filed the written statement. The plaintiff contends that there is an agreement for sale dated:23.09.2014 wherein defendant No.1 agreed and executed a sale agreement to sell the property in question in his favor. The plaintiff produced/ furnished the agreement for sale and during the course of evidence it was marked as Ex.P3 without objections. As the matter stood thus, counsel for defendant No.2 filed I.A.No.5 under Section 34, 36 and 58 of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and made a request to the Court impound the agreement for sale Deed dated:23.09.2014. The plaintiff filed objections. The Trial Court vide order dated:09.04.2021 impounded the agreement for sale and directed the office to send the original agreement for sale to the District Registrar Koppal for showing stamp duty and collecting the penalty to the said document. After the receipt of the report from the District Registrar the Trial Court vide order dated:01.06.2022 directed the plaintiff to pay the duty and penalty of Rs.5,48,900/-. It is this order that is called into - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4270 WP No. 102187 of 2022 question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as setout in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

#6. Counsel Sri. Sadiq N.Goodwala., submits that the order passed by the Trial Court is arbitrary and the same is perverse. Next, he submits that the Trial court taking into consideration of the provisions of the stamp Act and without assigning proper reasons has passed the order. A further submission is made that impounding the document and directing to pay the stamp duty and penalty is untenable. Lastly, he submits that the Trial Court has erred in treating the agreement for sale as a sale deed. He vehemently contends that Ex.P3 is only an agreement for sale and treating it as a sale deed and impounding the document and directing to pay the stamp duty is resulted in miscarriage of justice. Counsel therefore, submits that viewed from any angle the order of the Trial Court is bad in law. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4270 WP No. 102187 of 2022

#7. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

#8. The issue revolves on a narrow compass and relates to the payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty. Suffice it to note that the suit is one for specific performance. The plaintiff placed reliance on the agreement for sale dated:23.09.2014. It is pivotal to note that the plaintiff produced the agreement for sale and the same was marked as Ex.P3. However, on an application made by defendant No.2, the document was impounded. This is untenable. The reason is apparent. In this case, admittedly the instrument was admitted into evidence by the Court without any objection raised by the defendants. Since the instrument has been admitted into evidence, no question can be raised regarding its admissibility again at any stage of the suit or a proceeding on that ground that it had not been duly stamped. Moreover, in the present case Ex.P3 is only an agreement for a sale and it is not an absolute sale deed. The Trial Court overlooked this aspect of the matter and treated Ex.P3 as the sale deed and impounded the document. In my view, the Trial Court has failed to have regard to the relevant - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4270 WP No. 102187 of 2022 considerations and disregarded relevant matters. Hence, this Court deems it proper to quash the order dated 01.06.2022 passed by the Trial Court.

#9. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The Order dated

01.06.2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kushtagi in O.S.No.1036/2015 vide Annexure-G is quashed.

#10. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, all pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and the interim order if any granted by this Court stands discharged. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 63