Vikas Sharma vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Ajay Rastogi, J.—This intra-Court appeal has been filed against the order of the ld. Single Judge dt. 16.09.2013. As it reveals from the record, the dispute with regard to the subject property is pending before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumher in Suit No. 30/2013 and interim injunction is operating directing the parties to maintain status quo and this fact has not been disputed by the appellant before this Court.

At this stage, the counsel submits that appellant has executed a power of attorney in favour of one Shailendra Singh, as alleged due to his person reasons, presented before the Sub-Registrar, Kumher for registration. The Sub-Registrar, Kumher declined to register the instrument and sent its report dt. 04.09.2013 to the Inspector General (Stamps) and in furtherance thereto the order was passed by the Inspector General (Stamps)-cum-Collector (Stamps), Bharatpur vide order dt. 06.09.2013 (Ann. 5) assigning reasons regarding non-registration of the instrument which is a power of attorney executed by the petitioner primarily on the premise that for the same subject property a suit is pending before the competent Court and interim injunction is operating regarding status quo to be maintained by the parties and registering the instrument at this stage may not be feasible.

The main thrust of submission of counsel for petitioner is that after the Section 22-A of the Act has been declared ultra vires & unconstitutional by this Court and upheld by the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Basant Nahata, , at least the Registering Authority was not holding competence in rejecting the instrument from being registered and the action is per-se bad and the appeal could not have been preferred since the final communication has been made by the orders of the appellate authority and that was a reason for which he approached this Court by filing writ petition.

The ld. Single Judge taking note of the submissions made was of the view that for the same subject property a suit is pending before the competent Court and interim injunction is operating directing the parties to maintain status quo & there appears to be no apparent manifest error of the registering authority for taking such a decision but still the petitioner, who is a party to the suit, is at liberty for taking appropriate steps in the pending suit and obviously after any further order is passed by the competent Court of jurisdiction in the pending suit where the interim injunction is operating, it will be open for the petitioner also to avail further remedy which the law permits to him even in regard to the registration of power of attorney which he is intending to execute in favour of Shailendra Singh and this what the ld. Single Judge also observed in its order impugned dt. 16.09.2013.

The submission of counsel for appellant that these are independent proceedings and not dependent upon the pending suit and such action is not in conformity with the mandate of law.

In our considered view, if this fact is not disputed that the subject property is one & the same which is the subject matter of pending suit where interim injunction is operating directing the parties to maintain status quo and the present appellant is also one of the defendant in the pending suit, in these facts & circumstances, in our view as well what is being proposed & recorded by the registering authority in its order impugned may not be required to be interfered with. However, the ld. Single Judge even while dismissing the writ petition has granted liberty to the appellant of availing the remedy which may be available to him under the law.

We do not find any apparent manifest error in the order of the ld. Single Judge which may require interference. Consequently, the instant appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.