ORDER : Petitioner being the plaintiff in a specific performance suit in O.S.No.34/2015 is at the door steps of the writ court complaining against the order dated 06.11.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-C whereby learned Senior Civil Judge, Channapatna having found the subject documents to be unduly stamped has directed him to pay the deficit stamp duty along with penalty together quantified in a sum of Rs.58,57,500/-. 2. After service of notice, the 1st respondent has entered appearance through his counsel and opposes the writ petition; other respondents having been served have chosen to remain unrepresented; learned counsel for the respondent opposes the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasoning on which it is structured. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of the considered view that a limited reprieve needs to be granted to the petitioner for the following reasons: (a) the subject agreement to sell dated 03.04.2012 is for a consideration of Rs. 1,06,50,000-00 with no clause as to delivery of possession; it is drawn on an instrument of Rs.200/-; the stamp duty payable is in terms of Article 5(e)(ii) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 which comes to Rs.1,14,950/-inclusive of ten times penalty of the deficit stamp duty; however, learned Judge of the Court below has wrongly applied Article 5(e)(ii) on a baseless assumption that the agreement speaks of delivery of possession of the subject property, when apparently it does not; thus there is an error apparent on the face of the record; and, (b) the error mentioned above in the impugned judgment is supplemented by another inasmuch as the learned trial Judge has treated the written receipt is dated 07.04.2012 as being the part of the agreement to sell referred to above, when it is only in furtherance thereof; one needs no much common sense to differentiate between what is an integral part of an instrument and what is in furtherance of a transaction recorded in an instrument; this differentiation having not being made, the error is compounded. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues invalidating the impugned order to the extent it directs payment of stamp duty and penalty in excess of Rs.1,14,950/-; petitioner is directed to make good this deficiency within a period of eight weeks whereupon the subject agreement may be received in evidence on proof of its execution. All other contentions are kept open. No costs.