R MAHADEVAPPA Vs. R RAJASHEKARAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner - plaintiff filed a suit for redemption and consequential reliefs, LA. No. 8 was filed by the plaintiff under Section 33, 34 and 35 of the Karnataka Stamp Act read with Section 151 of CPC praying to impound the documents marked at Exs.D2 to D4. The trial Court by the impugned order rejected the same. Hence the present petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order and submits that the documents have been sufficiently stamped and hence, the trial Court rightly rejected the application. Hence, no interference is called for.

(3.) I do not find any error committed by the trial Court that calls for any interference. The trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order. Move over, the judgment in the case of K. Anjaiieya Setty vs K.H. Rangiah Setty reported in ILR 2002 KAR 3613 squarely applies to the case on hand. By relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held therein that so far as marking of the documents is concerned, the same should be done subject to the objections and then permit the parties to adduce evidence; instead of putting questions to the lawyers at the time of argument to state for what purpose they are relying on the said document. Thereafter, they should consider the respective contentions at the time of final hearing and then decide whether the said document could be looked into or not. Therefore, the right of the petitioner to raise his contentions even at the final hearing of the suit would still subsist. Hence, on this ground also, I do not find any error that calls for any interference. For the aforesaid reasons; the Writ Petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.