JAHANARA Vs. AZAMATUNISS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is plaintiff in OS 623/2009 has preferred this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 18.04.2011 including the office report dated 16.6.2011 vide Annexure-C and the order Annexure-F dated 28.07.2012 rejecting I.A. No. VIII filed by him under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in OS No. 623/2008 by the III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Belgaum.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, the plaintiff- petitioner is not aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court in so far as ordering for impounding the document styled as sale deed dated 06.07.1996 but she is aggrieved by the later part of the order whereby it has directed the office to calculate the deficit stamp duty payable and to report and the order Annexure-F rejecting I.A. No. VIII filed by her under Section 151 of CPC for reconsideration of the deficit stamp duty and penalty calculated by the office.

(3.) His submission is, only when plaintiff wants to introduce or tender a document in evidence which is not duly stamped as required under the Stamp Act, the Court can direct the office to calculate the deficit stamp duty payable and till then it could only order for impounding of such document. In support of his submission he has relied upon the Judgment of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 5870/2008 disposed of on 04.11.2008 in the case of Sri Shanath Kumar V.V. vs. Shri Manik Satwajirao Jathar. He further submits that eventhough the Trial Court has got discretionary power to levy lesser penalty on the deficit stamp duty payable as per the judgment of this Court in the case of Sri K. Govindegowda Vs. Smt. Akkayyamma, 2011 4 KCCR 2799, it has committed an error in rejecting I.A. VIII filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of C.P.C. for reconsideration of penalty calculated by the office on the deficit stamp duty payable. Therefore, he prays for allowing the writ petition as prayed for.