Karnataka High Court
V. Srinivasa Raju vs M/S. Banyan Projects India Pvt. Ltd on 16 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22468
WP No. 54603 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 54603 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
V. SRINIVASA RAJU
S/O. LATE VARADARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS,
R/AT NO. 12, 10TH MAIN,
RMV EXTENSION,
SADASHIVANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 082.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMU K.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. BANYAN PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
Digitally signed HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
by MEGHA NO.2, 1ST STREET, HADDOWS ROAD,
MOHAN NUNGAM PAKKAM,
CHENNAI-600 006.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO. 770,
12TH MAIN, 100 FEET ROAD,
INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 038
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI. SURESH HEMDEV
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.T.V.VIJAY RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22468
WP No. 54603 of 2018
HC-KAR
29.11.2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CITY CIVIL JUDGE IN O.S.NO.
4641/2016 AT ANNEXURE-E AND DIRECT THE TRIAL JUDGE TO
IMPOUND THE DOCUMENT FOR WANT OF STAMP DUTY AND REFER
THE MATTER TO THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY TO LEVEY PENALTY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAMP ACT.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 28.01.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS
DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CAV ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.V in
O.S.No.4641/2016 dated 29.11.2018 passed by the LXIII
Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-64), Bengaluru City,
the petitioner/defendant is before this Court.
2. The respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit against the
petitioner/defendant seeking the relief of recovery of money.
I.A.No.V is filed by the defendant under Section 151 of CPC
read with Sections 33 and 35 of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957,
for impounding the Unstamped Memorandum of Understanding
produced by the plaintiff as Ex.P4. It is stated that during the
course of marking of the documents, the trial Court without
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:22468
WP No. 54603 of 2018
HC-KAR
considering the objection raised by the defendant has marked
the Unstamped Memorandum of Understanding as Ex.P.4. It is
also stated that even though the Memorandum of
Understanding is only for the purpose of understanding
between the parties, the amount mentioned in the said
document clearly goes to show that there is a contact between
the parties with regard to offer and acceptance of the
immovable property. It is stated that the part consideration of
sum of Rs.50,00,000/- has already been paid to the owner of
the property and therefore, the document to be admissible in
evidence has to be stamped under the provision of the
Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.
3. The trial Court had dismissed the said application and
while dismissing the application, the trial Court had observed
that the document Ex.P4 is marked by the Court in the
presence of the counsel appearing for the defendant and at the
time of marking of the said document, absolutely there was no
objection from the other side, but very strangely the defendant
in his affidavit filed in support of the application has stated that
the trial Court had not considered the objection in respect of
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:22468
WP No. 54603 of 2018
HC-KAR
marking of the unstamped Memorandum of Understanding as
Ex.P4. The trial Court observed that while marking the said
document, there was no objection by the other side. Further,
considering Section 35 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, the Court
had observed that once an instrument is marked and admitted
in evidence that shall not be questioned at any stage of the said
suit or proceedings on the ground that the instrument has not
been duly stamped, except as provided under Section 58 of the
Act. There is a finding that the present suit of the plaintiff is for
recovery of money from the defendant, but not based on Ex.P4.
Ex.P4 is produced by the plaintiff to show the conduct of the
defendant as per the say of the plaintiff. The transfer of the
amount mentioned in Ex.P4 is in respect of the transaction
between the defendant and one Smt.Shobha Ratnam and
Smt.Rupa Narendran in respect of an agreement of sale dated
13.06.2014, entered into between them and that is not the
subject matter of this suit. Therefore, I.A.No.V cannot be
allowed and accordingly dismissed the same.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/
defendant submits that when the defendant raised an objection
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:22468
WP No. 54603 of 2018
HC-KAR
with regard to the unregistered document i.e., Memorandum of
Understanding, still the same was marked as Ex.P4. It is
submitted that the trial Court has not followed the procedure
while marking the unregistered/unstamped document as
contemplated under the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner
had relied on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
in case of Smt. Savithramma R.C. Vs. M/s. Vijaya Bank
and Another1 relied on Para No.6, 7 and 8 which reads as
follows:
"6. From the aforesaid statutory provisions and the
decisions, it is clear that a duty is cast upon every
Judge to examine every document, which is produced
or comes before him in the performance of his
functions. On such examination, if it appears to the
Judge that such instrument is not duly stamped, an
obligation is cast upon him to impound the same. This
duty is to be performed by the Judge irrespective of
the fact whether any objection to its marking is
raised or not. Hence, there is a need for diligence on
the part of the Court having regard to the statutory
obligation under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp
Act. Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act mandates
that an instrument, which is not duly stamped shall
not be admitted in evidence. If any objection is taken
to the admissibility of the evidence, it shall be
decided then and there. If this document is found to
be insufficiently stamped, then in terms of the
proviso (a) to Section 34, the Court shall call upon
the person, who is tendering the said document to
pay duty and ten times penalty and thereafter admit
the document in evidence. If duty and penalty is not
1
ILR 2015 Kar.1984
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:22468
WP No. 54603 of 2018
HC-KAR
paid, the document shall not be admitted in evidence.
If such an objection is not taken at the time of
admitting the said instrument in evidence, and the
insufficiently stamped document is admitted in
evidence then Section 35 of the Act provides that
such admission shall not be called in question at any
stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground
that the instrument has not been duly stamped. It
has nothing to do with impounding the document. A
duty is cast upon every Judge to examine every
document that is sought to be marked in evidence.
The nomenclature of the document is not decisive.
The question of admissibility will have to be decided
by reading the document and deciding its nature and
classification. The tendency to mark documents
without inspection and verification should be
eschewed. Even while recording ex parte evidence or
while recording evidence in the absence of the
Counsel for the other side, the Court should be
vigilant and examine and ascertain the nature of the
document proposed to be marked and ensure that it
is a document which is admissible. The Court should
not depend on objections of the other Counsel before
considering whether the document is admissible in
evidence or not. Section 33 of the Stamp Act casts a
duty on the Court to examine the document to find
out whether it is duly stamped or not, irrespective of
the fact whether an objection to its marking is raised
or not. Section 37 of the Act provides what the Judge
has to do when he has collected duty and penalty
under Section 34 of the Act and what he has to do, if
the case does not fall under Section 34 of the Act.
Section 37 of the Karnataka Stamp Act reads thus:
37. Instruments impounded how dealt with.-
(1) When the person impounding an instrument
under section 33 has by law or consent of parties
authority to receive evidence and admits such
instrument in evidence upon payment of a penalty as
provided by section 34 or of duty as provided by
section 36, he shall send to the Deputy Commissioner
an authenticated copy of such instrument, together
with a certificate in
writing, stating the amount of duty and penalty levied
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:22468
WP No. 54603 of 2018
HC-KAR
in respect thereof, and shall send such amount to the
Deputy Commissioner or to such person as he may
appoint in this behalf
(2) In every other case, the person so impounding an
instrument shall send it in original to the Deputy
Commissioner.
7. If the Judge has acted under Section 34 of the Act
and collected duty and penalty and admitted the
document in evidence, then under sub-Section (1) of
Section 37, he shall send to the Deputy Commissioner
an authenticated copy of such instrument together
with a Certificate in writing stating the amount of
duty and penalty levied in respect thereof and shall
send such amount to the Deputy Commissioner or
such person as he may appoint in this behalf. If the
Judge does not act under Section 34 of the Act, but
the document is insufficiently stamped and admitted
in evidence though objection regarding admissibility
cannot be raised subsequently that does not take
away his obligation to impound the document under
Section 33 of the Act. If the document is insufficiently
stamped and if the Court has admitted such
instrument in evidence without collecting duty and
penalty, then the Judge shall proceed under Section
33 of the Act and impound the document. After
impounding the document, he shall proceed under
Section 37(2) of the Act and shall send the
impounded instrument in original to the Deputy
Commissioner to be dealt with under Section 39 of
the Act. Therefore, impounding the document should
not be confused to admission of document without
objection regarding admissibility or on such objection
being taken after collecting the duty and penalty.
8. In the instant case, though the Trial Court has
said that the documents are duly stamped, it has not
discussed about the nature of the documents in order
to find out whether it is duly stamped. Only after the
said exercise, the Trial Court could have come to the
conclusion whether the duty paid on the instrument
is sufficient or not. Therefore, the Trial Court is
directed to undertake the above exercise and pass
appropriate orders and to proceed under Section 33
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:22468
WP No. 54603 of 2018
HC-KAR
of the Act read with Section 37(2) of the Stamp Act, if
the documents are found to be insufficiently
stamped."
5. Learned counsel had also relied on the judgment in
case of Digambar Warty and Others Vs. District Registrar,
Bangalore Urban District and Another2, on paragraph
Nos.58 and 59 which reads as follows:
"58. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex
Court, it is clarified that the observations made in the
judgment in K. Govinde Gowda's case should neither
be treated as binding by the Learned Single Benches of
High Court or Sub-ordinate Courts and other judicial
for as nor should that order be relied upon or made
basis, for bypassing the principles laid down in the
case of J.S. Paramesh, by the Division Bench of this
Court.
59. Section 39 of the Act deals with the power of the
Deputy Commissioner to stamp the instruments. When
he impounds the instrument under Section 33 or he
receives any instrument sent to him under sub-Section
(2) of Section 37, if he is of the opinion that the
instrument chargeable with duty or is not duly
stamped, he shall require the payment of the proper
duty or the amount required to make up the same,
together with a penalty of Rupees Five or if he thinks
fit an amount not exceeding ten times the amount of
the proper duty or of the deficient portion thereof,
whether such amount exceeds or falls short of five
rupees. Here again,the discretion is conferred on the
Deputy Commissioner to impose a penalty less than
ten times the duty payable. Therefore Section 38 and
Section 39 of the Act, confers power on the Deputy
2
2013 (4) Kar.L.J. 247(DB)
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:22468
WP No. 54603 of 2018
HC-KAR
Commissioner to levy penalty on an insufficiently
stamped instrument or an instrument which is not
stamped at all, less than ten times the penalty payable
thereon under Section 34 of the Act. However, the said
discretion conferred on the Deputy Commissioner
should be exercised in a judicious manner. He will be
exercising a quasi-judicial power. Therefore, he has to
take into consideration the facts of the case, the
circumstances under which the instrument is executed,
the reason given either for not paying stamp duty or
for payment of insufficient duty on such instrument
and other attendant circumstances and then in his
discretion can reduce the penalty payable. The said
order reducing the penalty should not be arbitrary and
whimsical, as otherwise it may give scope for abuse of
such power and the very intention of the Legislature
enacting the provision for penalty would be defeated.
Therefore, merely because the Deputy Commissioner
has been conferred under the statute the power to levy
duty less than 10 times, such a power cannot be
exercised mechanically without application of mind
and without assigning reasons for such reduction. That
would serve the object with which this penalty
provision is introduced in the Act, which in fact is in
the nature of terrorem, so that the duty payable on the
instruments are properly paid and the attempt to avoid
payment of requisite duty is discouraged. Section 67-A
of the Act provides that when the Deputy
Commissioner adjudicates the duty payable on such
instrument, there is an obligation cast on him to give a
reasonable opportunity to be heard, to such person
who is liable to pay duty."
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/
plaintiff submits that once a document is admitted in evidence,
it is not open to either of the parties as well as to the Court to
review the said order. He had relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirikonda Madhava Rao Vs. N.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22468
WP No. 54603 of 2018
HC-KAR
Hemalatha And Others3 and the judgment in case of
Shyamal Kumar Roy Vs. Sushil Kumar Agarwal4, on
paragraph Nos. 14, 15 and 16 which reads as follows:
"14. Section 36, however, provides for a 'stand alone'
clause. It categorically prohibits a court of law from
reopening a matter in regard to the sufficiency or
otherwise of the stamp duty paid on an instrument in
the event the same has been admitted in evidence.
Only one exception has been made in this behalf, viz.,
the provisions contained in Section 61 providing for
reference and revision. In a case where Section 33 of
the Act, as amended by West Bengal Act would be
applicable, the proviso appended to Sub-Section (5)
carves out an exception that if no action would be
taken after a period of four years from the date of
execution of the instrument.
15. The agreement, as notice hereinbefore, was
executed in the year 1995. The applications
purported to be under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 were filed by Appellant only on
16.2.2005. The Development Agreement, as noticed
hereinbefore, was admitted in evidence on 17.2.2003.
The learned Trial Judge as also the High Court relied
upon a decision of this Court in Javer Chand (supra).
An attempt to distinguish the said decision of this
Court was made, inter alia, on the premise that
therein this Court was concerned with interpretation
of the provisions of Marwar Stamp Act, 1947 in
respect of two mudatti hundis, which have been
admitted in evidence on payment of duty and penalty,
but sought to be made inadmissible in evidence in
terms of the provisions contained in the 1947 Act.
This Court opined that once the said document was
admitted in evidence, the new Act i.e. the 1947 Act
would be inapplicable, stating :
"Once a document has been marked as an exhibit in
the case and the trial has proceeded all along on the
3
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 970
4
(2006) 11 SCC 331
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22468
WP No. 54603 of 2018
HC-KAR
footing that the document was an exhibit in the case
and has been used by the parties in examination and
cross- examination of their witnesses, Section 36 of
the Stamp Act comes into operation. Once a
document has been admitted in evidence, as
aforesaid, it is not open either to the trial court itself
or to a court of appeal or revision to go behind that
order. Such an order is not one of those judicial
orders which are liable to be reviewed or revised by
the same court or a court of superior jurisdiction."
16. The said decision, therefore, is an authority for
the proposition that Section 36 would operate even if
a document has been improperly admitted in
evidence. It is of little or no consequence as to
whether a document has been admitted in evidence
on determination of a question as regards
admissibility thereof or upon dispensation of formal
proof therefor. If a party to the lis intends that an
instrument produced by the other party being
insufficiently stamped should not be admitted in
evidence, he must raise an objection thereto at the
appropriate stage. He may not do so only at his
peril."
7. Learned counsel for the respondent further relied on
the judgment in case of Javer Chand and Others Vs.
Pukhraj Surana5 which reads thus:
"In our opinion, the High Court misdirected itself, in
its view of the provisions of s. 36 of the Stamp Act.
Section 36 is in these terms:-
"Where an instrument has been admitted in
evidence, such admission shall not, except
as provided in section 61, be called in
question at any stage of the same suit or
proceeding on the ground that the
instrument has not been duly stamped."
5
AIR 1961 SC 1655
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22468
WP No. 54603 of 2018
HC-KAR
That section is categorical in its terms that when a
document has once been admitted in evidence, such
admission cannot be called in question at any stage
of the suit or the proceeding on the ground that the
instrument had not been duly stamped. The only
exception recognised by the section is the class of
cases contemplated by s. 61, which is not material to
the present controversy. Section 36 does not admit of
other exceptions. Where a question as to the
admissibility of a document is raised on the ground
that it has not been stamped, or has not been
properly stamped, it has to be decided then and there
when the (1) I.L.R. [1953] Raj. 833. document is
tendered in evidence. Once the Court, rightly or
wrongly, decides to admit the document in evidence,
so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is
closed. Section 35 is in the nature of a penal
provision and has far-reaching effects. Parties to a
litigation, where such a controversy is raised, have to
be circumspect and the party challenging the
admissibility of the document has to be alert to see
that the document is not admitted in evidence by the
Court. The Court has to judicially determine the
matter as soon as the document is tendered in
evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the
case. The record in this case discloses the fact that
the hundis were marked as Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 and
bore the endorsement 'admitted in evidence' under
the signature of the Court. It is not, therefore, one of
those cases where a document has been
inadvertently admitted, without the Court applying its
mind to the question of its admissibility. Once a
document has been marked as an exhibit in the case
and the trial has proceeded all along on the footing
that the document was an exhibit in the case and has
been used by the parties in examination and cross-
examination of their witnesses, s. 36 of the Stamp
Act comes into operation. Once a document has been
admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it is not open
either to the Trial Court itself or to a Court of Appeal
or revision to go behind that order. Such an order is
not one of those judicial orders which are liable to be
reviewed or revised by the same Court or a Court of
superior jurisdiction."
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22468
WP No. 54603 of 2018
HC-KAR
8. He had also relied on M/s. Cave Caterers Private
Limited Vs. M/s. Sudha Enterprises6 and further relied on
the case of K.S. Harikumar Vs. D.S Lalithamma And
Others arising out of WP No.12735/2019 dated
16.10.2024, in which paragraph Nos.9 and 10 reads thus:
"9. On reading of Section 58 of the Karnataka Stamp
Act, it is very much apparent even in case the
document is inadvertently admitted in evidence
without imposing penalty and collecting the deficit
stamp duty, said order has to be questioned by filing
the revision before the Court where the appeal lies
from the orders passed by the Court.
10. This Section 58 does not empower the Court
which has already admitted the document in evidence
to recall the said order. Section 35 comes in the
way."
9. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the entire material on record. Before considering the
submissions of either of the parties, it is appropriate to look at
the case of the plaintiff. The suit is filed for recovery of money.
The defendant had entered into an agreement for purchase of
the property from the owners namely Smt.Roopa Narendra
and her sister Shobha Ratnam dated 13.06.2013. The
defendant had already paid an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs as
advance and intended to sell/transfer the same to the plaintiff
6
ILR 2011 KAR 2017
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22468
WP No. 54603 of 2018
HC-KAR
and the plaintiff after accepting the said offer has agreed to
purchase the same for a total consideration of Rs.10 Crores
from the defendant who is the agreement holder for the
property. The defendant had assured the plaintiff that he shall
take all the responsibility to get the Sale Deed executed by
Smt.Roopa Narendra and Shobha Ratnam once they are
available. As a token of their consent, an amount of Rs.50
Lakhs transferred by the plaintiff into the account of
Smt.Roopa Narendra has been accepted by her. In furtherance
of the aforesaid payment, the defendant being the agreement
holder for the schedule property from Smt.Roopa Narendra
has agreed to get the aforesaid property registered in the
name of the plaintiff. The defendant represented that
Smt.Roopa Narendra and Shobha Ratnam have no objection
for entering into this Memorandum of Understanding with
plaintiff in respect of the property. The parties to the MOU
undertake that the entire transaction under the Memorandum
of Understanding shall be completed within a total period of
six months. The defendant apart from persuading the plaintiff
to part with the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Fifty Lakhs) in favour
of Roopa Narendra on the pretext of getting the Sale Deed
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22468
WP No. 54603 of 2018
HC-KAR
executed in respect of the aforesaid property in question in
favour of the plaintiff in terms of the Memorandum of
Understanding dated 05.07.2013, he also persuaded the
plaintiff to part with a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs as hand loan to
meet some financial emergency. The plaintiff paid a sum of
Rs.20 Lakhs by cash to the 1st defendant on 08.10.2013 with a
promise by the 1st and 2nd defendant that he would repay the
said sum of Rs.20 Lakhs within 90 days from the date of
receipt of the said amount.
10. The cash payment voucher dated 08.10.2013 and
the receipt issued by the 1st defendant for payment received
dated 08.10.2013 are produced and marked as documents 2
and 3. After the payment as neither the defendant nor Roopa
Narendra came forward to fulfill their commitment as promised
and committed under the MOU dated 05.07.2013 nor the
defendant came forward to repay the aforesaid sum of Rs.20
Lakhs. The plaintiff had filed a separate suit for recovery of the
aforesaid sum of Rs.50 Lakhs with interest from the defendant
and Roopa Narendra.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22468
WP No. 54603 of 2018
HC-KAR
11. It is stated in the plaint that the suit is filed for
recovery of an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. The cause of action
for the suit arose on 08.10.2013 when the defendant received
Rs.20,00,000/- by executing cash voucher and receipt
subsequently on 02.07.2014 when the demand was made by
the plaintiff under the said letter.
12. The plaintiff had filed objections to the I.A. stating
that in respect of Rs.50,00,000/- which is in respect of the
MOU, already a separate suit is filed by the plaintiff and now
the cause of action for this suit is the cash voucher and
transfer of Rs.20,00,000/-. Further, the MOU is not a contract
between the original owner of the property and the plaintiff
but only a document created to establish the payment of
Rs.50,00,000/- through a third party on the assurance of the
defendant. The MOU has no significance as the recovery of
money of Rs.20 lakhs is only the issue and only to drag on the
proceedings, the suit is filed.
13. This Court has perused the order. The part one of
the order discusses that no objection was raised while the
document was marked. According to the defendant, inspite of
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22468
WP No. 54603 of 2018
HC-KAR
their objection, the Trial Court had marked the document.
Coming to the second part of the order, the trial Court had
observed that Memorandum of Understanding is not the basis
for this suit which is filed for recovery of money. The suit is
filed basing on the money that is given by the plaintiff to the
defendant by executing a cash voucher and receipt. The Court
had given a finding that even on that count, the said
document is not subject matter of the suit and dismissed the
petition. Once a particular document is sought to be marked, it
is for the Court to see whether such a document can be
admitted in evidence, whether the document is sufficiently
stamped, whether it is registered or not. If it is insufficiently
stamped document, the Court has to pass necessary orders by
fixing the stamp duty and penalty. In this case, the Court went
on a premise that no objection is raised by the defendant.
There is no dispute about the proposition of law that a
document which is admitted and marked in evidence cannot
be questioned at a later point of time. This Court in
Smt.Savithramma R.C.'s case referred supra has observed
that a duty is cast upon the Judge to examine every document
and if it is not duly stamped, it is the obligation to impound
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22468
WP No. 54603 of 2018
HC-KAR
them. The Court has also observed that even after the
document is admitted, still the Court can consider and collect
the deficit stamp duty and penalty. In the light of the law laid
down in the above judgment, the first part of the order that no
objection is raised by the defendant cannot be sustained. Then
coming to the second part of the order, Ex.P.4 is an
unstamped and unregistered document. Even if it has to be
looked into for the collateral purpose also unstamped
document cannot be looked into. In that view of the matter,
even the second part of the order also needs to be set aside.
Hence, this Court is passing the following order:
ORDER
i. The order passed in I.A.No.V in O.S.No.4641/2016 dated 29.11.2018 passed by the LXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-64), Bengaluru City is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration.
ii. The trial Court shall decide the deficit stamp duty and penalty after giving an opportunity to both the parties.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22468 WP No. 54603 of 2018 HC-KAR iii. The application shall be disposed off within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
iv. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
v. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2