Karnataka High Court
Smt I E Theerthamma vs Miss A G Rohini on 13 August, 2014
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.4411 OF 2014 (GM-CPC)
Between:
Smt.I.E.Theerthamma
W/o V.S.Putte Gowda
Aged about 45 years
Agriculturist
Resident of Aldur at end Post
Chickmagalur Taluk & District - 573 132.
...Petitioner
(By Sri: V.Subash Reddy, Advocate)
And:
1. Miss. A.G.Rohini
D/o Sri.A.N.Gundu Rao
Aged about 50 years
Agriculturist, Narahari Estate
Gallignadi, Aldur
Chickmagalur Taluk & District - 573 132.
2. Sri.A.G.Jayasimha
S/o A.N.Gundu Rao
Aged about 55 years
2
No.27, I Cross
Sundaranagar, Gokula
Bangalore - 560 054.
...Respondents
(By Sri: N.S.Raghavendra Prasad, Advocate)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-A, impugned
order dated 7.2.2013 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC, Chickmagalur, in O.S.No.510/2011, in respect of IA No.3
under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act read with Section 151
of the Code of Civil Procedure and consequently dismiss IA No.3
in its entirety as prayed for and pass appropriate orders or reliefs
and grant interim order of stay all further proceedings in OS
No.510/2011, pending on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge
and JMFC, Chickmagalur.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B'
Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is before this Court, questioning the wisdom of the Court below in permitting the respondents herein to produce an allegedly fabricated document styled as an agreement of sale 3 which has been alleged to have been created by the defendants and seeking that it be impounded and that they would be ready and willing to pay the deficit duty and penalty and seeking that there be a determination of duty and penalty. The Court below having accepted such an application, the present petition is filed.
3. Notwithstanding the serious allegations that the defendants have fabricated the so-called agreement of sale, when a document which is not duly stamped is filed in Court, it would the duty of the Court to impound such document notwithstanding the stage of the proceedings. Therefore, the unusual circumstance, the defendants themselves have voluntarily sought that the document be impounded and that they be called upon to pay the duty and penalty does not immediately create the presumption that the document is a fabricated one and it cannot also be concluded that the respondents are seeking to give it a colour of authenticity by having it produced it before the Court below by paying duty and penalty on the same. 4 If any such presumption is raised, it would be available for the petitioner to challenge the document and it could be addressed at the appropriate time. The calculation of duty and penalty is a matter between the Court and the respondents herein. The petitioner would have no say in the matter. Accordingly, there is no substance in this petition and the same is rejected. However, the petitioner's contention that the document is a fabricated one and that it is created for the purpose of laying claim to the suit property is a contention that would be available to him which he may take to its logical conclusion.
Sd/-
JUDGE KM