( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Sood, learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

( 2 ) THE only short point involved in this petition is whether the authority was justified in imposing the penalty for registration of the documents if the party did not present himself for confessing the execution of the document on account of the injunction granted by the competent Court and the higher forum.

( 3 ) THE short facts of the case are that on 18-6-2001, petitioner No. 2 sold the land to petitioner No. 1 and for such purpose sale-deed was executed. The sale-deed was presented for registration by the purchaser. However, on 19-6-2001, one Mr. Vashrambhai Kukabhai Bharawad filed Special Civil Suit No. 160/2001 against petitioner No. 2/1 to 2/6 and the learned Civil Judge granted injunction of maintaining status-quo qua transfer of the land. Petitioner No. 1 was not impleaded as party and, therefore, the document was presented. However, petitioner No. 2/1 to 2/6 did not present for confession of the execution of the document since the injunction was granted by the learned Civil Judge. On 2-11-2001 the learned Civil Judge vacated the injunction by passing the order below Ex. 5. However, upon the request of the plaintiff with a view to enable him to approach before the higher forum the ad-interim stay was extended upto 1-12-2001. Thereafter, appeal from order was preferred by the original plaintiff against petitioners No. 2/1 to 2/6 challenging the order of the learned Civil Judge and the said appeal from order came up for hearing before this Court (Coram: S. D. Dave, J.) on 27-11-2001. It is the case of the petitioners No. 2/1 to 2/6 that they remained present being caveator. However, this Court granted stay on the same day. Thereafter, ultimately the A. O. was heard by this Court (Coram: A. M. Kapadia, J.) and as per the order dated 20-3-2002, A. O. came to be dismissed and consequently the injunction granted in the appeal from order also came to be vacated.

( 4 ) AFTER the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioners No. 2/1 to 2/6 presented themselves for confessing execution of document for the registration. However, the Sub-Registrar declined to register since the time limit was over. The petitioner preferred appeal under the Indian Registration Act to the District Registrar and the Collector, Ahmedabad. The Collector passed the order, copy whereof is produced at Annexure "d". Of course, in the said order the date is not mentioned, but there is a reference of noting of the file dated 6-1-2003, therefore, the learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that date is 6-1-2003. The District Collector in her capacity as District Registrar under the Registration Act passed the order for extension of time on payment of the penalty of Rs. 71,250/= for document No. 1965/2001 and the penalty of Rs. 13,125/= for document No. 1966/2001, total the penalty of Rs. 84,375/=. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court for challenging the order for imposition of penalty.

( 5 ) I have heard Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sood, learned AGP for the respondents.

( 6 ) THERE is no dispute on the point that the Collector has power to grant extension under the Registration Act in capacity as the District Registrar under the Registration Act. As such the extension of time has been granted and, therefore, this Court is not required to examine as to whether the extension of time should have been granted or it has been rightly granted or not. The fact remains that the extension of time was granted. Even otherwise also there was the injunction granted against petitioner 2/1 to 2/6 by competent Court and, therefore, it was a case for granting extension of time and such cause is rightly considered by the District Collector and the extension of time has been granted.

( 7 ) THE question which is required to be consider