ORDER:

This revision is preferred by the petitioners challenging the docket order, dated 25.01.2022, in O.S.No.157 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

2. Heard Sri Doddala Yathindra Dev, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants and Sri Srinivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.

3. The facts, in brief, are that:

The respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property into nine (9) equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiffs jointly by metes and bounds and put them in separate possession of the same. Originally, the schedule property is the ancestral property of Malkapurapu Manmadhudu S/o Venkatappaiah. Plaintiff No.1 is the son and plaintiffs 2 & 3 are the granddaughters of Malkapurapu Manmadhudu. Malkapurapu Manmadhudu enjoyed the schedule property and died intestate. After his death, the schedule properties devolved on his legal heirs, viz., plaintiffs and defendants and that they are in joint possession and enjoyment. As the defendants failed to cooperate for partition of the schedule property, the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition.

4. The defendants filed written statement contending that the plaintiffs and defendants were never in joint possession of the schedule property at any point of time and the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the schedule property and the defendant No.12 along with her children including plaintiff No.1 executed a gift agreement letter/Dhakalu Oppudala Patram, dated 05.04.2022, in favour of defendant No.13 duly mentioning all the events that lead to the execution of the said letter and in furtherance thereof, the defendant No.12 also executed a registered gift deed, dated

07.08.2004.

5. While things stood thus, both the plaintiffs and defendants led their evidence in the suit. While the suit was coming up for arguments, the defendants stated to have come to know that the letter, dated 05.04.2022, was not marked on account of payment of deficit stamp duty. As such, the defendants filed I.A.No.1575 of 2018 in O.S.No.157 of 2014 under Section 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act read with Section 151 CPC to send the letter filed into the Court along with the chief affidavit of defendant No.13 to the District Registrar for deciding the deficit stamp duty and for impounding the document. However, the trial Court, by order, dated 07.02.2019, dismissed the said petition.

6. Aggrieved by the order, dated 07.02.2019, passed in I.A.No.1575 of 2018 in O.S.No.157 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, the petitioners herein preferred C.R.P.No.1395 of 2019 and this Court, vide order, dated 19.06.2019, allowed the revision petition holding in the operative portion of the order as follows:

“ In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and I.A.No.1575 of 2018 in O.S.No.157 of 2014 is allowed directing the trial Court to send the document/instrument in question to the Stamp Duty Collector concerned for ascertaining the nature of the transaction embodied in the document/instrument and collecting deficit stamp duty, if any, & penalty payable on the said instrument. It is made clear that in the event the deficit stamp duty and penalty are paid by the defendants as determined by the stamp duty collector, the trial Court shall then consider the admissibility of the said instrument for any collateral purpose, however, following the precedential guidance of the Supreme Court wherein the word ‘collateral purpose’ is explained, nonetheless, uninfluenced by the observations on the said aspect, which are already recorded in the order, which is now set aside.”

7. In furtherance of the aforesaid order, the petitioners herein paid the deficit stamp duty and penalty and placed the letter before the trial Court for marking of the same for collateral purpose. However, the trial Court, by the impugned order, d