ORDER :

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to proceedings in RFL/Thalavadi/9/2022 dated 17.08.2022 and to quash the order of the respondent herein in RFL/Thalavadi/9/ 2022 dated 17.08.2022 and consequently direct the respondent herein to register the final decree dated 18.04.2016 in I.A.No.353 of 2010 in O.S.No.203 of 2010 presented by the petitioner.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to proceedings in RFL/Thalavadi/9/2022 dated 17.08.2022 and to quash the order of the respondent in RFL/Thalavadi/9/2022 dated 17.08.2022 and consequently direct the respondent to register the final decree dated 18.04.2016 in I.A.No.353 of 2010 in O.S.No.203 of 2010 presented by the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner filed the suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.6 of 2002 (renumbered as O.S.No.203 of 2010) and also obtained a final decree in I.A.No.353 of 2010 from the Sub Court, Sathiyamangalam. Thereafter, the said final decree was presented before the respondent for registration and the respondent refused to register the same on the ground of delay. Hence, this petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is no period of limitation for registering the decree obtained and further submitted that the issue arises in the present case has already been settled by this Court. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court made in W.A.No.336 of 2019 dated 07.02.2019.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent did not dispute the facts submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

6. The issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the earlier judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.336 of 2019, dated 07.02.2019, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

''6. The legal question involved in the instant case is as to whether the respondent could have refused registration of the said decree passed in O.S. No.6 of 1968 dated 29.4.1970 on the ground that it was presented beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 23 of the Act. Since the legal question is no longer res integra and the respondent having not taken note of the legal issue, this Court is of the view that said the writ petition is maintainable and the appellant need not be driven to avail the alternate remedy available under the Act. Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader stands rejected.

.........................

13. As pointed out by us earlier, we need to first address the legal issue, which arises for consideration as to whether at all the law of limitation as prescribed under Section 23 of the Act would apply to a court decree.

14. This question is no longer res integra and this Court has consistently held that the law of limitation will not apply when a court decree is presented for registration. Earliest of the decisions, which has been followed consistently by a Division Bench of this Court is in the case of A.K. Gnanasankar Vs Joint-II Sub-Registrar, Cuddalore-2 [reported in 2007 (2) TCJ 68]. In the said decision, this Court held that the limitation prescribed for presenting a document does not apply to a decree, as it is a permanent record of the court and to register the same, no limitation is prescribed.

15. This decision was followed by one of us (TSSJ) in W.P.No.9352 of 2015 dated 31.3.2015 [B.Vijayan Vs. District Registrar & another]. Subsequently, a similar view had been taken by this Court in W.P.No.8247 of 2016 dated 07.3.2016 [G.Mudiy