Order In all these writ petitions, the petitioner one K. Saaral, W/o. T.E.S. Kamaludeen challenged the check slips issued by the respondent in respect of three release deeds executed by the brother in laws of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner and her children. 2. The only reason assigned in the impugned order is by contending that there is a claim for deficit stamp duty in respect of the parent document namely document No.1548 of 2013. Unless the said amount is cleared, the petitioner's release deed cannot be accepted for registration. 3. In respect of those documents, earlier three writ petitions were filed before this Court in W.P. (MD)Nos.16154, 16155 and 16246 of 2012 and the said writ petitions were disposed of by this Court by an order dated 13.03.2013 with a direction to register the release deeds, dated 11.06.2012, kept as pending documents bearing Nos.P.26, P.27 and P.58 of 2012. In spite of the said direction issued in the writ petitions, the documents were not registered and therefore, Contempt Petitions in Cont.P(MD)Nos.1023 and 1024 of 2013 were filed. In the said Contempt Petitions, a direction was issued to the following effect:- “3. Mr. Sathiskumar, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent although mentioned before this Court that writ appeal has been filed, but the same is in the SR stage. He further stated that subject to the final result of the writ appeal, the petitioners' release deeds would be registered and released, within a period of one week, after making appropriate endorsement on the back side of the documents, as it is normally done”. 4. Pursuant to the direction issued in the Contempt Petitions, the documents in question have been registered and released and an endorsement has been made which is subject to the further orders to be passed in the writ appeal which has been filed by the Government as against the order dated 13.03.2013 made in W.P(MD)Nos.16154, 16155 and 16246 of 2012. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal has been filed with delay and the appeal is yet to be numbered. 6. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal has been filed with delay and the appeal is yet to be numbered. 6. In the light of the fact that the liability in respect of the previous transaction is yet to attain finality and already a direction issued by this Court in the Contempt Petitions recording an undertaking, the documents in question which are involved in these writ petitions, cannot be kept pending. However, the petitioner should be imposed certain conditions so that the interest of revenue is also protected. 7. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed subject to the condition that the documents in question shall bear an endorsement that the same is being released and registered subject to the further orders to be passed in the writ appeal filed by the respondents as against the orders passed in W.P.Nos.16154, 16155 and 16246 of 2012, dated 13.03.2013 which is said to be pending before this Court and in the event of any liability is fastened on the petitioner in respect of the earlier transaction, then the petitioner is bound to clear the said liability and with the said effect the petitioner shall furnish a letter of undertaking before the respondent and on complying with the above, the documents in question will be registered and released subject to the endorsement and furnishing of undertaking, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.