Karnataka High Court
Syed Mohiddin vs Sri Ramanji on 15 July, 2022
Bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.10948 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MR. SYED MOHIDDIN
S/O SYED AJIMUDDIN
AGED 67 YEARS,
OCC: AGIRCULTURIST
R/O. KATTAGENAHALLI, HOSKOTE TALUK,
DIST: BENGALURU-562114
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VEERANNA G TIGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI RAMANJI
AGED : 42 YEARS
2. SRI.LAKSHMINARAYANA
AGED : 40 YEARS,
(BOTH SONS OF KRISHNAPPA @ KITTANNA,
AND RESIDENT OF KARANJI EXTENSION,
MALUR TOWN, MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT-563130).
3. SMT. SUBBAMMA
W/O LATE KRISHNACHARI
AGED : 77 YEARS
2
4. SMT. LEELAVATHAMMA
D/O LATE SRIKANTACHARI
AGED 57 YEARS
5. SMT. PRABHAVATHAMMA
D/O LATE SRIKANTACHARI
AGED 54 YEARS
6. SRI.MANJUNATH
S/O LATE SRIKANTACHARI
AGED 51 YEARS
7. SRI.GAJENDRA KUMAR
S/O LATE SRIKANTACHARI
AGED 44 YEARS
8. SMT. MANGALA
W/O LATE S.VIJAY KUMAR
AGED 32 YEARS
(NO.3 AND 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF
2ND STAGE, MARUTHI EXTENSION,
NEAR HANUMANTHANAGAR,
MALUR-563130)
(NO.4, 6 TO 8 ARE RESIDENTS OF
DODDAKADATHUR VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK-563130)
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 & R2 ARE SERVED)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEX-J THE
ORDER DATED 05.02.2016 DISMISSING THE I.A.XXII IN ORIGINAL
SUIT NO.123/2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SR. CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC MALUR AND ETC.,
3
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 23.06.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the defendant No.7
who is a pendente lite purchaser and is questioning the order
dated 05.02.2016 passed on an application filed in I.A.No.22
in O.S.No.123/2012 requesting the Court to impound Ex.P-13
and collect duty and penalty.
2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have instituted suit in
O.S.No.123/2012 seeking relief of specific performance of
contract based on an agreement to sell dated 08.12.2009.
The respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs in support of their
contention have let in evidence by producing the suit
agreement which is marked at Ex.P-13. The present petitioner
who is a pendente lite purchaser, at the stage when the
matter was set in for reply arguments, has filed application in
I.A.No.22 under Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp
Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') requesting the Court to recall
the marking of the suit agreement vide Ex.P-13 dated
08.12.2009 and impound the suit agreement as it is
insufficiently stamped.
3. The learned Judge having examined the rival
contentions placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shymal Kumar Roy vs.
Sushil Kumar Agarwal1 has declined to entertain the prayer
sought in the application. The learned Judge referring to the
said judgment was of the view that once a document is
admitted in evidence without other side objecting to it, the
right to reopen the said issue is lost. It is this order which is
under challenge.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Perused the records.
5. In the present case on hand, the present petitioner
who is arrayed as defendant No.7 is a pendente lite purchaser.
AIR 2007 SCC 637
His vendor has contested the proceedings and the matter was
set down for reply arguments. At that juncture, the present
petitioner has filed an application to recall the earlier order
admitting the suit agreement in evidence vide Ex.P-13. The
application is not tenable on two counts. Firstly, pendente lite
purchaser has no say in the proceedings. In terms of Section
52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the petitioner will be
bound by the decree that would be passed in the suit and he
has no independent claim that needs adjudication, more
particularly in a suit for specific performance of contract.
Secondly, as held by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Sri R.Mahesh and Another vs. Sri B.P.Venugopal2,
there can be no dispute with regard to proposition of law, that
once a document is admitted in evidence, the order admitting
the document cannot be revised or reviewed by the said Court
itself. Even if the document is received in evidence, while
deciding the lis, it is always open for the Judge to examine the
evidentiary value of the document which is marked. Mere
ILR 2018 Kar 3029
admission of a document in evidence does not amount to
proof. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order under
challenge.
6. With these observations, I pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CA
