Karnataka High Court
Shri Shivanandmungarwadi S/O ... vs M/S R.N Hattaraki on 1 April, 2024
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5969
WP No. 101849 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 101849 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI SHIVANAND MUNGARWADI,
S/O. SHANKARAPPA MUNGARWADI,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 67,
II STAGE, CHANNAMMA NAGAR,
BELAGAVI, PIN: 590 006.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SURAJ S.MUTNAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S R.N. HATTARAKI,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS:
1. SHRI VISHWANATH HATTARAKI
S/O. MAHANTAPPA HATTARAKI,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
2. SHRI ANNASAHEB HATTARAKI,
KATTIMANI
S/O. BASAPPA HATTARAKI,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
OCC: BUSINESS,
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2024.04.02
14:56:51 +0530
BOTH RESIDING AT: HALAKARNI VILLAGE,
TALUK: GADHINGLAJ,
DISTRICT: KOLHAPUR-416 506.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.S. SHETTAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BELAGAVI PASSED ON I.A NO.
4 UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1-A DATED: 13.12.2023 IN O.S.NO.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5969
WP No. 101849 of 2024
336/21 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-N, AND ISSUE WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BELAGAVI DATED: 09.02.2024
IN O.S. NO.336/2021 PASSED ON SUFFICIENCY OF STAMP DUTY
WITH RESPECT TO AGREEMENT DATED 17.04.1997 AND 12.03.1998
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-Q.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of nature of certiorari or any other
direction to set aside the order passed by Hon'ble
Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial
Magistrate at Belagavi passed on I.A.no. 4 under
Order VIII rule 1-A dated: 13.12.2023 in
O.S.no.336/21 produced as Annexure-N, and issue
writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
direction to set aside the order passed by Hon'ble
Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial
Magistrate at Belagavi dated: 09.02.2024 in
O.S.no.336/2021 passed on sufficiency of stamp
duty with respect to agreement dated 17.04.1997
and 12.03.1998 produced as Annexure-Q.
2. Sri Suraj S.Mutnal, learned counsel for petitioner
submitted that petitioner was plaintiff in O.S.no.336/2021
before Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5969
Magistrate, Belagavi. Said suit was filed for recovery of
mesne profits. In said suit, defendants sought to rely upon
two agreements dated 17.04.1997 and 12.03.1999
respectively produced as Annexures-S and S1. It was
submitted agreements being unregistered and under
stamped, petitioner raised objection against their marking
and under impugned order, trial Court heard parties on
objection and ordered that deeds were duly stamped and do
not violate Section 17 or 49 of Registration Act. It was
submitted said deeds though termed as agreements were
infact lease deeds requiring compulsory registration and
payment of stamp duty even though they do not indicate
such compliance, order impugned would be unsustainable
and sought for quashing.
3. On other hand, Sri C.S.Shettar, learned counsel
for respondents sought to oppose writ petition. It was
submitted marking of documents was a ministerial act and
legality of documents cannot be considered at stage of
production. It was submitted burden would be on defendants
who were producing these documents to establish contents
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5969
of documents and petitioner's apprehensions were ill-found.
It was submitted that this Court under similar circumstances
in W.P.no.105876/2022 disposed of on 26.02.2024 had after
appreciating circumstances held power to impound
documents would not be available after marking and legality
of documents would require to be tested at time of final
disposal of suit.
4. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition
record.
5. From above, it is seen petitioner herein is plaintiff
challenging order permitting defendants to produce and
mark documents Annexures-S and S1 herein as Exhibits D5
and D6. On objections having been raised by plaintiff, trial
Court has heard parties on said objections and under
impugned order held that documents produced do not suffer
from either of defects alleged. Submission of learned counsel
for respondents in this regard would be substantive. Mere
marking of documents would not cure documents of all
defects and same would require to be considered at time of
passing of final judgment.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5969
6. But it is seen that while passing impugned order,
trial Court has made observations which would come in way
of plaintiffs' agitating issue at time of final disposal.
Therefore, while declining to interfere with impugned order,
it is clarified that observations of trial Court while passing
impugned order shall not come in way of petitioners urging
their contentions at time of final arguments and observations
would not come in their way. Trial Court would be bound to
consider same at time of disposal of suit.
7. With above observations, writ petition is disposed
of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CLK
