ORDER :

1. The issue involved in all these writ petitions are common and hence, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this Common Order.

2. All these writ petitions are filed for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Sub Registrar to register the decree passed by the competent Civil Court and not to reject the same on the ground of limitation as prescribed under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 (herein after called as ‘The Act’).

3. Insofar as the W.P. (MD) Nos. 8091 and 8093 of 2020, are concerned there is yet another issue that has been raised by the petitioners to the effect that the Sub Registrar should not insist for the registration fees based on the value of the property and it should be levied only on the total value of the suit.

4. Mr. Veerakathiravan, learned Senior Government counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that Section 23 of the Registration Act specifically provides for the time limit within which a document must be presented. By bringing to the notice of this Court the proviso to Section 23, the learned Senior Government counsel submitted that a decree should be presented for registration, within a period of four months from the date on which the decree or the order was made ready. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that once the Act specifically provides for a time limit for presenting a decree for registration, on the expiry of the time limit, the said decree cannot be entertained by the Registrar.

5. The learned Senior Government counsel further developed his arguments by submitting that there are contradictory views taken in some of the judgments rendered by this Court and therefore, there must be some clarity on the applicability or otherwise on the issue of limitation insofar as the registration of court order or decree is concerned.

6. The learned Senior Government counsel brought to the notice of this Court the orders passed in W.P. (MD) No. 13070 of 2009, dated 23.03.2007, W.P. (MD) No. 5955 of 2014, dated 27.07.2014 and W.A. No. 2395 of 2003, dated 27.07.2016. The first two orders were passed by a single Bench of this Court and the third order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court. By pointing out these orders, the learned Senior Government counsel submitted that in all these orders, it has been clearly held that a decree should be presented within a period of four months from the date it was made ready under Section 23 of the Act and there is scope for presenting the decree, within a further period of four months by virtue of Section 25 of the Act. Beyond this period, a decree cannot be entertained for registration by the Sub Registrar.

7. The learned Senior Government counsel, thereafter, proceeded to point out the contrary judgments in W.A. (MD) No. 336 of 2019, dated 07.02.2019, W.P. (MD) No. 13896 of 2019, dated 20.06.2019 and the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A. (MD) No. 902 of 2021, dated 26.04.2021. The learned Senior Government counsel submitted that in all these judgments, it has been held that insofar as the Court decree is concerned, limitation prescribed under the Act will not get attracted.

8. The learned Senior Government counsel submitted that it is clear from the above that there are two sets of judgments, which are contradictory to each other and therefore, there must be a clear pronouncement of law on the issue and hence, the issue requires consideration by a larger Bench.

9. Per contra, Mr. J. Barathan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P. (MD) Nos. 8091 and 8093 of 2020 and Mr.Samuel Gunasingh appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 9446 of 2020, submitted that insofar as the first two orders pointed out by the learned Senior Government counsel, those are orders passed by learned single judges and in view of the subsequent Division Bench Judgments, those orders may not have any binding effect in deciding the issue. Insofar as the Division Bench judgment, th