M.N. SWAMIGOWDA Vs. MARIGOWDA A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner as a plaintiff had instituted a suit in O.S.No.563/2010, in the Court of Prl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & C.J.M., at Mysuru, against the present respondent arraying him as defendant for the relief of recovery of money. According to both parties, the said O.S.No.563/2010 was later renumbered as O.S.No.181/2014 and was made over to the Court of learned Addl.Small Causes Judge at Mysuru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as Rs. trial Court'). According to the petitioner herein since the defendant did not appear in the suit, he was placed ex parte and the plaintiff was permitted to lead his evidence. As such, the plaintiff led his evidence as PW-1 on 20/11/2010 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-52. It is thereafter the defendant appeared and filed two interlocutory applications i.e., IA.No.13 under Sec. 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 read with Sec. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as Rs. CPC'), seeking a direction to the plaintiff to pay the duty and penalty on the alleged agreement which was marked as Ex.P-1 on 20/11/2010 and IA.No.15 under Order XIII Rule 1 read with Sec. 151 of CPC, seeking a direction to the plaintiff to produce the original of the alleged Agreement dtd. 12/3/2006. The trial Court by its impugned order dtd. 8/8/2017, allowed both the IAs., impounded the Agreement at Ex.P-1 and directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty of a sum of Rs. 4,18,000/- and also directed the plaintiff to produce the original Agreement dtd. 12/3/2006. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff in the trial Court is before this Court as a petitioner.

(2.) The respondent is being represented by his learned counsel.

(3.) Initially learned counsel for the petitioner submitted his detailed arguments contending that the impugned order does not sustain in the eye of law, as such deserves to be set aside. However, when he was still to continue his arguments, it was brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the respondent that the trial Court has not at all passed any order on the application of the defendant seeking recalling of the order placing him ex parte and permitting him to contest the matter. At that stage, the matter was stopped from hearing further on the impugned order and the trial Court record which had already been summoned and placed before the Court was verified.