High Courts(1998) 01 AHC CK 0053

Man Pal Singh and Others vs District Registration Officer/Additional District Magistrate and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 22 January 1998

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.R.Singh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 539 of 1998

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 410 words

S. R. Singh, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and also the Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 1. I have also heard Sri Pranab Ojha, appearing for the opposite parties 2 to 5 and perused the order dated 5997 of the District Registrar thereby foreclosing the right of the petitioners to file objection as well as the order, dated 181297 rejecting the restoration application dated 41197.

2.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that the objection under Section 73 of the Registration Act, 1908 has already been filed on behalf of the petitioner before the District Registrar copy of which is annexed as Annexure2 to the Suppl. affidavit filed today. A perusal of Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 would be eloquent of the fact that the period prescribed for appeal against the order refusing to register a document is 30 days from the date of the order. The Registrar is vested with the power to reverse or alter the order passed by the SubRegistrar. The procedure to be observed by the Registrar, shall be as indicated in Sections 74 and 75 of the aforesaid Act. Section 75, subsection (4) of the said Act postulates that the Registrar may for the purpose of any enquiry under Section 74, summon and enforce attendance of witnesses and compel them to give evident in the capacity qua a Civil Court. It is thus evidence that the entire Code of Civil Procedure is not intended to apply to proceedings under Section 72/73 of the Act. There is no provision brought to my notice prescribing limitation for filing any objection to the appeal preferred under Section 72/73 of the Act. By order dated 5997 the District Registrar foreclosed the right of the petitioner to file any objection and by the subsequent order dated 181297, the application for recalling the earlier order dated 5997 has been rejected as barred by time. Since the objection has already been filed, it would be in the fitness of things to direct the Registrar to reckon into consideration the objection and decide the controversy in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

3.

Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 181297 and dated 5997 are quashed. The District Registrar is directed to decide the appeal after taking into consideration the objection already filed and after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties expeditiously if possible, within two months. Appeal accordingly.