LALITHA Vs. NAGU MANJAMMA SHEDTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the impugned order dtd. 20/4/2022 passed on I.A.No.8 in O.S.No.31/2019 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at Bhatkal whereby the aforesaid application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Sec. 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act (for short, 'the Act') was allowed by the trial Court.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to respondents is dispensed with.

(3.) The material on record discloses that the petitioners-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell in relation to the suit schedule immovable property and for other reliefs. The said suit is being contested by the respondents-defendants. After completion of pleadings and before framing of issues, the petitioners-plaintiffs moved the instant application-I.A.No.8 under Sec. 33 and 34 of the Act seeking impounding of agreement to sell dtd. 10/5/2010 sought to be enforced in the suit by the petitioners-plaintiffs. Though the said application was not opposed by the respondents-defendants, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order not only allowing I.A.No.8 but also directing payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty. It is the grievance of the petitioner that having regard to the language contained in Sec. 33 read with Sec. 37(2) of the Act, the trial Court was not entitled to direct payment of duty and penalty on the document, particularly when the petitioners-plaintiffs did not seek admission of the said document in evidence as required under Sec. 34 of the Act and only option available to the trial Court was to impound the document and send the original document to the Deputy Commissioner for adjudication under Sec. 37(2) read with Sec. 39 of the Act. It is therefore contended that the trial Court committed an error in straight away directing payment of duty and penalty without following procedure prescribed under Sec. 33, 37(2) and 39 of the Act by passing the impugned order which deserves to be set aside.