S SAVITHRAMMA Vs. S P JAYAPALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, being the plaintiff in a civil suit in O.S. No.2653/2006 for a decree of declaration as to certain conveyances being null and void and for a consequential injunction is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 25.04.2019 whereby, respondents application for production of documents has been favoured and another order dated 30.05.2019 whereby, respondents' memo dated 28.05.2019 for payment of deficit stamp duty along with penalty has been accepted. The contesting first respondent having entered Caveat through his counsel, resists the writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned orders arguing that delayed production of documents in question could not have been accepted there being no plausible explanation for the delay brooked in their production; the memo for payment of deficit stamp duty along with penalty could not have been accepted just on payment of a partly sum of Rs.4,400/- when the subject sale deed dated 21.09.2002 had specifically mentioned about delivery of possession of the subject property pursuant to the agreements which are unduly stamped, inasmuch as, admittedly stamp duty on par with conveyance has not been paid.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Caveator respondent No.1 per contra contends that the impugned order relating to delayed production of documents is unassailable since delay has been properly explained; the said order having emanated from the exercise of discretion vested in the Court below in accordance with the rules and justice, this Court in its restrictive jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily does not interfere with, in the absence of gross error of law causing prejudice to the petitioner.