IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.50970 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI. K SHIVANNA S/O LATE. KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 30, AMBLIPURA, BELLANDUR GATE, SARJAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 034.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI. SUDHAKAR RAO N S/O LATE NAGESHWARA RAO N, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO. 878, 8TH CROSS, ITI LAYOUT, PAPAREDDY PALYA, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 072.
... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE 35TH ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE BENGALURU (CCH-
36) DATED 23.8.2019 IN O.S.NO.8191/2013 (ANNEXURE-E) PM I.A.NO.7; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner being the defendant in a money suit in O.S.No.8191/2013 is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 23.08.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-E, whereby the learned XXXV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, having rejected his application in IA No.7 filed under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, read with Order XIII Rule 8 of CPC, 1908, has refused to impound the subject agreement.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter being in agreement with the reasoning of the Court below at Para 8 of the impugned order which reads as under:
“8.The defendant has filed written statement. Issues are framed. On 4-12-2018, in the evidence of P.W.1 Ex.P.2 the unregistered Sale Agreement dated 18-6-2011 is exhibited. ON the said day, no objection is raised by the defendant. The order sheet and deposition of P.W.1 discloses that the defendant was absent before the Court. In this regard, it is necessary to place reliance upon AIR 1961 SC 1655 – Javerchand Vs. Pukhraj Surana, where under, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering Section 35 & 36 of the Stamp Act held that, once a document is exhibited or admitted in evidence, ti is not liable to be reviewed or revised. The said proposition was followed in several judgments by the Hon’ble High Courts and Supreme Courts. Recently, our Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.1998/2017 between Sri M.shankar Vs.
M. surendra followed the said proposition and held that once the document is admitted in evidence, the same cannot be revised: In view of the settled position, it is too late for the defendant to raise objection regarding marking of Ex.P2 and insisting for duty and penalty. Hence, the point under reference is answered in the negative. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER I.A.No.7 is rejected.
Posted for Cross of P.W.1.”
3. The contention that the language & articulation of the reason in the above paragraph, for rejecting the subject application ought to have been of much higher standard may be true, but being beside the point, does not constitute a sufficient justification for indulgence of the Writ Court in its limited supervisory jurisdiction, constitutionally vested.
It is open to the petitioner to make the impugned order a ground for challenging the judgment & decree if & when made adverse to his interest as provided under Section 151 read with Order XLIII Rule 1A of the amended Code.
Sd/- JUDGE DS