This writ petition challenged an order allowing amendment of plaint and marking a lease agreement photocopy in a property dispute. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the stamp duty order was not challenged previously, subsequent orders cannot be questioned.
Writ petition dismissed
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 102865 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. SURESH S/O. GANAPATI REVANKAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT: SABGERI, TQ: YELLAPUR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581359.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ZANZA JOSHI, ADV. FOR SRI. GOURISHANKAR H. MOT, ADV.)
AND:
SAROJA HANGARAKI
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA DHARWAD BENCH
R/O.#303, HOYSALA APARTMENTS, CUNNINGHAM CRESCENT, OPP: MAHAVIR JAIN HOSPITAL, MILLER TANK BUND ROAD, BENGALURU NORTH-560001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADV. FOR R1(A-G))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY SUCH WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.09.2019 ON I.A. NO.6 & SUE MOTO ORDER DATED 17.12.2019 FOR MARKING OF EX.P.6 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI IN O.S.NO.479/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
the counsel appearing for the respondents.
application. The trial Court after hearing both the parties, allowed I.A.No.VI.
Court ought not to have allowed the application. He would also contend that without compliance and foundation for leading secondary evidence, the Trial Court has permitted to mark the document.
of now has made out a ground to mark the secondary document and the objection of the other side at this
juncture does not arise but the same can be taken care of during the main trial at the time of taking the case on merits and hence keeping the objection open, the Ex.P.6 is marked. Counsel contends that when the document is impounded and collected the stamp duty, later the petitioner cannot object for the same.
of Rs.17,856/- which the plaintiff is liable to pay but only taking the note the fact that the deed is written on stamp of Rs.200/-, the deficit stamp comes to Rs.17,656/- and ten times penalty also imposed which comes to Rs.1,76,560/- and held that upon payment of such deficit stamp and penalty, the said document may be referred that too for collateral purpose.
allowing of the amendment consequent upon allowing of the said document ought not to have allowed cannot be accepted and Trial Court also marked the document after collecting the stamp duty that too subject to objection and also the order is very clear with regard to the admissibility of document and the same will be taken care of during the course of main trial at the time of taking the case on merits.
the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
SH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court can quash the trial court order allowing amendment of plaint and marking of a photocopy of lease agreement as secondary evidence.
Whether the impugned orders are liable to be quashed despite the Impugned order not challenging the earlier stamp duty collection order.
Whether the Trial Court erred in marking the document subject to objection during the main trial without compliance of Evidence Act.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
SURESH S/O. GANAPATI REVANKAR
HANSABEN W/O. NATAWARLAL SINGALA
SAROJA HANGARAKI
SMITA KISHOR SAKARIA
ANU W/O. ATUL VASANI
RASHMI W/O. PARAG KARIA
H.P. SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
