ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 22-6-2013 impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. The petitioner in that regard is seeking that the respondents be directed to refund the penalty collected by respondent 2 i.e., to the extent of Rs. 3,98,995/-. The petitioner had purchased the property bearing Sy. No. 50/1 measuring 10 acres of Avandi Village, Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu District under an agreement dated 22-10-1999. The petitioner in that regard had filed a suit in O.S. No. 92 of 2005 for specific performance of the said agreement. In respect of the agreement, an issue was raised with regard to the appropriate stamp duty being paid on the document relating to the said property. In that light, in the suit an order dated 21-6-2005 was passed wherein it was held that the stamp duty that was required to be paid was under Article 20 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. In view of the decision rendered by the Civil Court, the Competent Authority had arrived at the conclusion that the stamp duty payable is in a sum of Rs. 39,000/- and in that view, the penalty of Rs. 3,99,000/- was to be paid which the petitioner has paid. 2. However, the petitioner by relying on the judgment of this Court in K. Govinde Gowda v. Smt. Akkayamma and Others, 2012 (4) Kar. L.J. 240, ILR 2011 Kar. 4719 would contend that the stamp duty as ordered to be paid and the penalty imposed is not justified and in that view, the petitioner had made the petition under Section38 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 seeking refund of the amount. The authority has issued the endorsement dated 22-6-2013 indicating therein that the proceedings for determining the stamp duty and the penalty was pursuant to the order that was passed on 22-9-2005 and as such the petition filed by the petitioner seeking refund of the amount would not arise for consideration. The petitioner is claiming to be aggrieved by the same. As noticed, the petitioner is relying on the judgment of this Court cited supra. Even if that be the position, at this juncture, this Court cannot hold that the endorsement issued by the respondents impugned at Annexure-A is misconceived. The petitioner is claiming to be aggrieved by the same. As noticed, the petitioner is relying on the judgment of this Court cited supra. Even if that be the position, at this juncture, this Court cannot hold that the endorsement issued by the respondents impugned at Annexure-A is misconceived. The fact that an order was passed by the Civil Court on 21-6-2005 with regard to the manner of determination of the stamp duty cannot be in dispute. If that be the position, when there is an inter-party order passed by the Court, based on which the Competent Authority has determined the stamp duty and the penalty payable, if the authority passes any order at this stage, it would amount to overriding the order of the Civil Court. Therefore, the endorsement which is issued with reference to the order passed in O.S. No. 92 of 2005 cannot be considered as erroneous at this stage. However, it would be open for the petitioner to rely upon the judgment of this Court and seek for appropriate orders in O.S. No. 92 of 2005 and in the said proceedings, if any clarifications are issued, it would be open for the petitioner to reapproach the authority thereafter based on the directions to be issued therein. Reserving such liberty to the petitioner, the petition stands disposed of.