ORDER :

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned check slip order passed by the second respondent dated 19.3.2021 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the second respondent to forthwith register the sale deed, dated 19.3.2021 without insisting on production of any further documents within the time stipulated by this Court.

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal Check Slip issued by the second respondent, dated 19.3.2021 and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to register the sale deed, dated 19.3.2021.

2. The case of the Petitioner is that the subject property originally belonged to one Armstrong Fernando and he sold the property in favour of one Periyasamy on 27.4.2010. The said Periyasamy by virtue of sale deed, dated 27.6.2018 sold the subject property in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner intended to sell the property in favour of one Annadurai and he executed a sale deed on 10.3.2021 and it was presented for registration before the second respondent. The second respondent has refused to register the document through, the impugned refusal Check Slip. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court.

3. Heard Ms.S.Prabha, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

4. When the matter came up for hearing on 2.7.2021, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate to take specific instructions on the stand taken by the Petitioner at Paragraph 7 and 8 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. Thereafter, the matter was posted on 9.7.2021. This Court passed the following Order:

''The learned Government Advocate on instructions submitted that insofar as the mortgage that was created in favour of Indian Overseas Bank, the same has already been redeemed. Therefore, the averment made by the petitioner in the affidavit at paragraph No.7 is correct.

2. The learned Government Advocate circulated the attachment order passed by the Civil Court and it pertains to Survey No.110/1. The name of the petitioner is not found in the cause title. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property has been subdivided and the petitioner is the owner of the property in S.No.110/1A2B. The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to produce relevant documents to substantiate the same. The learned Government Advocate shall take instructions and report before this Court.

3. Post this case under the same caption on 16.07.2021.

5. The above order shows that insofar as the mortgage created in favour of Indian Overseas Bank is concerned, it has already been redeemed. The crux of the issue pertains only to the order of attachment passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.175 of 2018. The learned Government Advocate produced the copy of the order for the perusal of this Court.

6. The suit in O.S.No.175 of 2018 has been filed by one Vivek against one S.Periyasamy. In this suit, the order of attachment has been passed on 1.9.2018 and the subject property has been attached and it has also been effected and necessary entries have been made in the relevant records maintained by the second respondent. The above-said Periyasamy is the vendor of the Petitioner. However, he sold the property in favour of the Petitioner on 27.6.2018. It is clear that the order of attachment has taken place subsequent to the property being sold in favour of the Petitioner.

7. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the order of attachment pertains to the subject property and therefore, the second respondent cannot register any document and violate the orders passed by the competent Civil Court.

8. This Court had an opportunity to consider the question as to whether the order of attachment