Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 883 (KAR)

M. Shankar v. M. S. Surendra

2018-08-10

VINEET KOTHARI

body2018
ORDER : VINEET KOTHARI, J. 1. The first defendant-tenant Sri. M. Shankar, has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.12.2016, whereby the learned Trial Court rejected IA. No. 8 filed by the first defendant-tenant Sri. M. Shankar, through which the defendant had sought for impounding of the Lease Deed dated 03.03.2002 and demanded deficit stamp duty thereon. 2. The reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court are quoted below for ready reference: "4. Admittedly, the document in respect of which the defendant has raised his objection of deficit stamping is already marked as Ex. P1 and at the time of marking it as usual this defendant No. 2 was absent and there was no representation on his part, so my predecessor in office marked that document and adjourned the matter for cross examination of PW1. Having kept quite from 23.10.2012, the date of which the said document was marked, on 8.8.2016 the defendant No. 1 has come up with the application in hand. In this regard, I would like to refer to the larger bench decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at AIR 1961 SC 1655 (Javer Chand V/s. Pukhraj Surana). In that case, the Hon'ble Court referring to the Section 35 and 36 of Stamp Act held that, once a document is exhibited or admitted in evidence it is not liable to be reviewed or revised. This ratio was followed in the subsequent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at 2007 AIR SCW 234 (Shyamal Kumar Roy V/s. Sushil Kumar Agarwal). Similar view was expressed by our Hon'ble High Court in the decisions reported at ILR 1987, Kar 3511 (B) (Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., V/s. Prakash Road Lines (P) Ltd., ILR 2007 KAR 2786 (B) (Smt. Mallikga Paneer Selvan V/s. Sri. Raja Sathyanarayana Shetty and Others), 2008(3) Kar.L.J. 377 (D) (Residents of Shri Chitrapur Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Bangalore V/s. District Registrar, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore and Another), 2010 (5) KCCR 4030 (Sri. H. Krishnappa V/s. M D Ashwathnarayana Singh) and ILR 2011 KAR 2017 (M/s. Cave Caterers Private Limited V/s. M/s. Sudha Enterprises). In all of these decisions, the principle laid down in Javer Chand V/s. Pukhraj Surana was consistently adhered and followed. H. Krishnappa V/s. M D Ashwathnarayana Singh) and ILR 2011 KAR 2017 (M/s. Cave Caterers Private Limited V/s. M/s. Sudha Enterprises). In all of these decisions, the principle laid down in Javer Chand V/s. Pukhraj Surana was consistently adhered and followed. Therefore, it is too late for the defendant to raise objection regarding the marking of lease deed or to urge for impounding of it. Hence, I answer this point in the negative." 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-first defendant/tenant Mr. B.B. Sagar, relying upon the following decisions of this Court submits that the stamping of the lease deed in question which was for a period of 20 years as per Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 was mandatory and even if the objection in this regard was not raised at the earlier stage of trial but at the later stage, the same could not have been rejected by the learned Trial Court and in the absence of adequate stamp duty of the Document in question, becomes inadmissible in evidence. The judgments relied upon by him are: (i) K. Amarnath Vs. Smt. Puttamma reported in ILR 1999 KAR 4634; and (ii) Shri. Chandrashekar @ Hanumantharaju Vs. Smt. Huchamma and Others decided on 04.11.2016 in Review Petition No. 166 of 2016 in Writ Petition No. 27694 of 2012. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1-plaintiff relies upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Zipper India Limited Vs. W. Newman and Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 2018 SC 2847 . 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that no interference in the impugned order is called for, as the learned Trial Court has rightly held that the said objection about the stamp duty on the Lease Deed in question was raised belatedly and at the fag end of the trial. The effort of the first defendant-tenant seems to be to drag the trial unnecessarily, as the lease deed in question which was executed way back on 03.03.2002 and such an objection could have been raised at the initial stage itself and there seems to be no justification in raising the said objection at a belated stage. 6. No grounds are made out to interfere with the said order. Therefore, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 6. No grounds are made out to interfere with the said order. Therefore, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.