The court held that a sale certificate, required to be filed in the local registration office under law, cannot be refused based on a status quo order in a related civil suit involving a non-party.

Judgment :

A.C. Behera, J.

The petitioner (Bank of Baroda) being represented through its Authorized Officer-cum-Chief Manager at Sector-7 Branch, CDA, Cuttack has filed this writ petition against the opposite parties praying for quashing the letter No.1613 dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure-5) issued by the District Sub-Registrar, Cuttack (opposite party No.1).

2. The case of the petitioner is that, as per the provisions of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short SARFAESI Act, 2002) along with the rules thereof as well as Banking Rules and Procedures, the petitioner- Bank sold the mortgaged properties through an e-auction to the opposite party No.3 on dated 10.09.2024 as per certificate of sale (Annexure-1) and forwarded a copy of the said sale certificate to the Registering Officer (opposite party No.1) to be filed in Book No.1 of its office as per Section 89 (4) of the Registration Act, 1908.

As per letter No.1613 dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure-5), the opposite party No.1 refused to make necessary entries of the copy of the sale certificate in Book No.1 assigning the reasons in the said Annexure-5 that,

“as the Senior Civil Judge, Dhenkanal in I.A. No.168 of 2023 (arising out of C.S. No.482 of 2023) has ordered on dated 30.11.2023 not to change the nature and character of the I.A. schedule property till disposal of the original suit vide C.S. No.482 of 2023 and as the property noted in the sale certificate has been included in Lot-1 of the schedule of property of the I.A., as such, the property has been blocked for any transaction.

Therefore, necessary entries of the sale certificate in Book No.1 could not be made. The sale certificate is lying pending in this office till the matter is resolved.”

To which, the petitioner-Bank has challenged that Annexure-5 by filing this writ petition.

3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner- Bank, the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State and the learned counsel for opposite party No.3.

4. On the basis of the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, the question arises, whether during the pendency of the civil suit and I.A., in which, the petitioner is not a party and on the basis of status quo order passed in I.A. in respect of the auctioned properties involved in the sale certificate, the refusal of the District Sub-Registrar (opposite party No.1) as per Annexure-5 to file the copy of the sale certificate in Book No.1 of his office is sustainable under law?

5. Section 89 (4) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 clarifies that, “every officer granting a certificate of sale to the purchaser of immovable property sold by public auction shall send a copy of the certificate to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the whole or any part of the immovable property comprised in the certificate is situate, and such officer shall file the copy in his Book No.1.”

6. On conjoint reading to the Sections 17 (2)(xii) and 89 of the Registration Act, 1908, it is going to show that, a copy of the sale certificate is to be forwarded by the Bank to the local Sub-Registrar after completion of sale through auction for filing of the said copy of the sale certificate in Book No.1 of the local registration office and the local Sub- Registrar cannot refuse/deny for filing of the same in Book No.1 of the Registration Office, for no other reason, but as per law, for preservation of a record relating to the concerned auction sale in the said local Registration Office of the Government. Because, the filing of the copy of the sale certificate in the Book No.1 of the local Registration Office becomes the record