ORDER : (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 30.08.2018 passed on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.2884/2017 by the XXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard. 3. Sri.Manohar B.K., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of item No.2 of the suit schedule property and for mandatory injunction against the respondents in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property. The respondents filed an application after the evidence of PW-1 and after marking of the documents from Exs.P1 to P24 seeking to impound Ex.P24. It is submitted that Ex.P24 is a meeting proceedings of the family members with regard to the item No.1 of the suit schedule property. However, the Trial Court, without considering the objections and without appreciating that Ex.P24 is neither a conveyance nor a release deed, has impounded the said exhibit and directed the petitioner to pay the duty and penalty of Rs.11,000/-. It is further submitted that pursuant to Ex.P24, neither any sale deed was executed nor the petitioner received any consideration. Hence, treating the said document as a release deed, the Trial Court directed the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and penalty which is incorrect. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, Sri.A.Anil Kumar Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the impugned order and submits that Ex.P24 extinguishes the right of one party and creates right in favour of another party in respect of property. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly impounded the document and directed the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and penalty. It is submitted that the Trial Court has held that Ex.P24 is inadmissible until the requisite stamp duty and the penalty is paid and the said order is required to be challenged under Section 58 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is further submitted that if the petitioner does not intend to rely on Ex.P24 even then, he is liable to pay the duty and penalty. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of SANDRA LESLEY ANNA BARTELS Vs. P.GUNAVATHY , [MANU/KA/2107/2012] . He seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of SANDRA LESLEY ANNA BARTELS Vs. P.GUNAVATHY , [MANU/KA/2107/2012] . He seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by both the sides. 6. The petitioner filed O.S.No.2884/2017 seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of plaintiff's 1/8 th share in item No.2 of the suit schedule property and for a decree of mandatory injunction against the respondents with regard to item No.1 of the suit schedule property. The respondents filed written statement. PW-1 has been examined and certain documents were marked. Ex.P24 is marked by the petitioner. The respondents filed an application under Section 33 of the Act seeking to impound Ex.P24 and further prayer to direct the petitioner to pay the penalty and stamp duty. The said application was opposed by the petitioner stating that Ex.P24 is neither a document required to be stamped nor a compulsorily registerable instrument. It is only a meeting proceedings of the meeting held on 26.04.2005. It is contended by the petitioner that the said document neither confers any right nor conveys the right in favour of the petitioner. The Trial Court, considering the contentions held that the instrument is insufficiently stamped and impounded the same by directing the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and penalty of Rs.11,000/-. The petitioner produced the document at Ex.P24. The said document indicates that there is an extinguishment of right of one party and confirmation of right in favour of another party. The Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the said document is executed by the family members releasing their share or title over the joint family property in favour of one person and further held that the petitioner is liable to pay the penalty and duty considering the said instrument as the release deed under Article 45 of the Act. I do not find any error or perversity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court in impounding the document and further directing the petitioner to pay the duty and penalty. I do not find any error or perversity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court in impounding the document and further directing the petitioner to pay the duty and penalty. The contention of the petitioner that no instrument is executed pursuant to the said clause in Ex.P24 cannot have any relevance to decide with regard to payment of duty and penalty. The document clearly indicates that the same has been entered between the family members and the rights have been released in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property. Hence, the said instrument is liable for penalty and duty as held by the Trial Court. PW-1, in his evidence has also deposed that Ex.P24 is a family settlement which further fructifies that there is confirmation of right and extinguishment of right between the parties. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents need not be gone into in this present proceedings as it is the settled law that it is always open for the competent Court to take steps if the duty and penalty is not paid by the party to the proceedings as directed. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected.