JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned A.P.P., for the respondents.

2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner, by the present petition wanted to seek direction for disposal of his application for grant of sanction to prosecute the Sub-Registrar, Tumsar for having allowed registration of the sale-deed, allegedly registered in contravention of the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter called as the Act) and the Maharashtra Registration Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called as the Rules). However, during the pendency of the petition, it appears that the said application filed by the petitioner was disposed of as rejected. The petitioner, therefore, seeks to challenge the same on the ground that the refusal to grant the sanction for prosecution of the Sub-Registrar, Tumsar is bad in law besides being arbitrary inasmuch as that the registration of the sale-deed in question by the Sub-Registrar is totally in contravention of Rule 44(c) and (h) of the said Rules.

4. Few facts relevant for the decision are that: the petitioner runs a printing press situated on a plot bearing City Survey N

Click Here to Read the rest of this document