Karelal Kora and Others vs The State of Bihar and Others

Ajay Kr. Tripathi, J.—Heard counsel for the parties. This Court is not willing to record the rival submissions which have been made on the issue, lest it may be interpreted in one way or the other by the parties to the dispute to their advantage. The basic issue, however, is that a document presented for registration before the registering authority was not acted upon for the reasons now indicated in the counter affidavit filed on their behalf. Two things, however, during the pendency of the writ application has emerged, one is that the original vendor or executant is no more and secondly that an order rejecting registration of the document under Rule 135(C)(ii) has already been passed in the present case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 states that notices were issued to her mother when she has already left for her heavenly abode and, therefore, there was no occasion to comply with the notices. There are other disputes with regard to the claim of respondent No. 5 by the inventionists. Keeping in mind that an order in question now is appealable, this writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal and assail the order in question. The delay in filing of the appeal may be condoned keeping in view the fact that the writ application in question was pending adjudication before this Court all these years.

The writ application is disposed of with the above liberty.