IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.6193 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN SRI SYED ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O MR. SYED IBRAHIM R/AT NO.437-B, 5TH CROSS OPP: BDA COMPLEX HBR LAYOUT BENGALURU-560043. … PETITIONER (BY SRI R.KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE) AND 1. MR. K.RANGARAJAN AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O MR.H.V. KRISHNA IYENGAR LAST KNOW TO BE R/AT NO.111/6 6TH MAIN BETWEEN 7TH & 8TH CROSS MALLESWARAM BENGALURU-560003.
2. SRI AMJATH SHERIFF.M S/O SRI H.M.SHERIFF AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER MR. H.M. SHERIFF S/O MOHAMMED HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS R/AT NO.03, 7TH CROSS JALAGRAMA TEMPLE STREET CHAMUNDINAGAR R.T.NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560032. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DTD:19.09.2019) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.09.2012 IN O.S.25554/2017 PASSED BY THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-M AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the plaintiff in a specific performance suit in O.S.No.25554/2012 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court for assailing the order dated 06.09.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure – M, whereby the learned XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, having impounded the subject document namely ‘agreement of sale’ dated 12.02.2010 has directed payment of deficit stamp duty along with ten times penalty under Sections 33 & 34 of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.
2. After service of notice, the respondent/defendants having entered appearance through their counsel, resist the Writ Petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of a considered opinion that the impugned order is unassailable because admittedly, though the possession of property is not delivered under the agreement, the petitioner was liable to pay the stamp duty in terms of Article 5(e)(ii) of schedule to the Act; the same having not been accordingly paid, the court below having impounded the documents, has directed payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty. There is no infection legal or factual in the impugned order.
4. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. However, petitioner is granted a period of two months for making payment of deficit duty and penalty in terms of impugned order.
5. Learned trial Judge is requested to try and dispose off the suit within a period of six months after the impugned order is complied with.
Since the main matter itself is disposed off, the pending application pales into insignificance.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE NR/-