Allowed

Ramachandrasa S/O Dhasharathsa Megharaj v. K Devendrappa S/O Kolagal Dammurappa

Karnataka HC26 Nov 2020WP/113574/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Karnataka issued a writ petition to quash an order where the trial court rejected an application to impound an insufficiently stamped document. The High Court held the trial court erred, following precedent, and ordered the document be impounded and duty assessed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 30.10.2015 on I.A.No.X in O.S.No.268/2014 is quashed and the petitioner's application to impound the document is allowed.

Ramachandrasa S/O Dhasharathsa Megharaj Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶5

W.P.No.113574/2015 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RAMACHANDRASA S/O DHASHARATHSA MEGHARAJ AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: OCC: BUSINESS, R/O MAIN ROAD, GAJENDRAGADA, TQ.RON, DIST: GADAG.

¶8

.. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.M.M.PATIL, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

K.DEVENDRAPPA S/O KOLAGAL DAMMURAPPA AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O MALAPANGUDI, TQ.HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY.

¶12

.. RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI.B.C.JNANAYYASWAMI, ADV.)

¶14

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT ON I.A.NO.X IN O.S.NO.268/2014 DATED 30.10.2015 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, HOSPETE VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated

¶19

30.10.2015 on I.A.No.X in O.S.No.268/2014 by the Principal Civil Judge, Hospete filed this writ petition.

¶20

Brief facts of the case are that, respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.268/2014 for recovery of money against the petitioner. The petitioner filed written statement. The trial Court framed issues. Respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and produced document which is marked as Ex.P1. The said Ex.P1 is executed on insufficient stamp paper. The petitioner filed an application seeking direction to the respondent to pay duty and penalty by impounding Ex.P1. The respondent filed objection to the said application. The trial Court after hearing both sides rejected the said application filed by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

¶21

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶23

respondent.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶25

the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner wherein the document produced by the respondent which is marked as Ex.P1 is executed on insufficient stamp paper. The respondent without paying the duty and penalty marked the document, which is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Smt.Savithramma R.C. Vs. M/s Vijaya Bank and another in W.P.No.27073/2012 disposed of on 07.03.2014 .

¶26

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

¶27

submits that once the document is marked, it cannot be recalled subsequently for payment of duty and penalty. The trial Court is justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, he prays to reject the writ petition.

¶28

¶29

6. Perused the records and also submissions of the

¶30

learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

It is not in dispute that respondent has filed a

¶32

suit for recovery of money and produced an agreement and got marked the agreement as Ex.P1. The said agreement is found to be insufficiently stamped. The petitioner filed an application directing the respondent to pay duty and penalty by impounding Ex.P1. The trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that, once if a document is marked, it cannot be recalled at any stage. The said observation is contrary to the decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Savithramma’s case (supra) . This Court after considering the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) held that the document is insufficiently stamped, duty cast upon the Court to examine about the impounding of document and admissibility of the document. In the instant case, the document is

¶33

¶34

insufficiently stamped and without collecting duty and penalty, the trial Court ought to have proceeded under Section 33 of the Act. After impounding the document, the trial Court 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.

¶35

The trial Court without properly appreciating the

¶36

provisions of the Act has rejected the application merely on the ground that, once if the document is marked cannot be raised objection in regard to admissibility of the document at the subsequent stage. As observed above, the said observation is contrary to the decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Savithramma’s case (supra) . The trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, the impugned

¶37

order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶38

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.10.2015 passed on I.A.No.X in O.S.No.268/2014 by the Principal Civil Judge, Hospete is quashed and the application filed by the petitioner is allowed.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

MBS/-

Ramachandrasa S/O Dhasharathsa Megharaj v. K Devendrappa S/O Kolagal Dammurappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandrasa S/O Dhasharathsa Megharaj v. K Devendrappa S/O Kolagal Dammurappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Parappa S/O Channappa Savadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Gurusiddappa S/O. Sangappa Nagatan Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Shri Shivaji Govind Patil Vs Shri K Mohini Shenoy

Vasant S/O Krishna Kamat Vs State of Karnataka

Khan Lorry Body Building Industries Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivashankrappa S/O. Doddappa Aiali Vs the State of Karnataka