Back
2004 Supreme(All) 1879
2005 (2) AWC 1814 (LB)
(ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT—LUCKNOW BENCH)
Devi Prasad Singh, J.
W. P. No. 42 (M/S) of 1980
Decided on October 11, 2004
Raghuvir Narain Rastogi
Versus
State of U. P. and others
Counsel for the Petitioner: V. R. Singh, S. K. Mehrotra, P. C. Srimal, K. Nath and I. D. Shukla.
Counsel for the Respondents: P. K. Khare, P. Chandra and Rajesh Tiwari.
The Court established that the power to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies only to a Court and not to other authorities, such as the Sub-Registrar or the appellate authority under the Registration Act.
Headnote:
Registrar's Power to Condone Delay - Registration Act - Section 5, Section 23, Section 25, Section 73
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner entered into an agreement for the sale of a house. The Sub-Registrar declined to register the agreement, and the opposite party filed an application for condonation of delay beyond the statutory period. The Registrar extended the period for registration, leading to the petitioner's challenge of the impugned order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Registrar's power to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under the Registration Act. The impugned order was held to lack jurisdiction, and the writ petition was allowed, quashing the order and providing consequential benefits to the petitioner.
Issues: The key issue was whether the Registrar had the power to condone the delay in registering the agreement beyond the statutory period.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which extends the power for extension of the period beyond the date of limitation, applies only to a Court and not to other authorities. The Sub-Registrar or the appellate authority under the Act, though working as a public servant, does not discharge duties as the presiding officer of a Court.
Final Decision: The writ in the nature of certiorari was issued, quashing the impugned order and providing consequential benefits to the petitioner.
Devi Prasad Singh, J.—The short question involved in the present writ petition is that whether the Registrar has got power to condone the delay in pursuance to power conferred by Section 5 of the Limitation Act or in pursuance to any provision contained in Registration Act, 1908 (in short hereinafter referred as Act) in case an application is submitted under Section 73 of the Act beyond the period of limitation provided under the said section?
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner had entered into an agreement on 1.5.1978 with opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 in respect of sale of House No. 222/2 (ga) situated at Raja Bazar, Lucknow for a sum of Rs. 80,000 and taken advance of Rs. fifteen thousand. After execution of agreement a sum of Rs. 20 thousand was again received by the petitioner. A copy of agreement has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 moved an application dated 13.9.1978 before opposite party No. 3, i.e., Sub-Registrar, Lucknow for the registration of agreement dated 1.5.1978. The opposite party No. 3 had issued a notice and directed the petitioner to appear for the execution of agreement. However, after going through the record by order dated 7.2.1979 the opposite party No. 3 had declined to register the agreement. Thereafter, petitioner had returned the amount of Rs. 35 thousand by cheque dated 14.2.1979 along with letter dated 14.2.1979. Instead of accepting the amount opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 had preferred an appeal/application under Section 73 of the Indian Registration Act before opposite party No. 2, i.e., District Magistrate/ Additional District Magistrate,
Lucknow on 9.3.1979. In response of application of opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 Misc. Case No. 1 of 1979 was registered for adjudication of controversy in accordance to law. The application dated 9.3.1979 has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. An application for condonation of delay was also filed along with appeal. In response thereof petitioner had filed his reply dated 7th July 1979 a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The case was heard on 22.8.1979 by opposite party No. 2 along with application for condonation of delay. The opposite party No. 2 had condoned the delay on payment of cost and also extended the period for registration of agreement twice. Copy of order passed by the opposite party No. 2 dated 12.9.1978 and 3.1.1979 have been filed as Annexures-6 and 7 respectively to the writ petition. Order dated 12.9.1978 shows that the application of Nizamuddin Kudurti (father of opposite party No. 4) was allowed in pursuance to Section 25 of the Registration Act on payment of the cost of Rs. 60 as penalty and the period was extended for four months for the purpose of registration of document, and the Sub-Registrar was directed to register the document. By order dated 3.1.1979 filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition the period was further extended on payment of Rs. 60 as penalty for a month purported to be power conferred by Section 25 of the Registration Act. Petitioner had applied for certified copy of the order dated 12.9.1978 followed by order dated 3.1.1979 by moving appropriate application but failed to get a copy as appears from averment made in para 12 of the writ petition. Thereafter by impugned order dated 21.9.1979 as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition again the opposite party No. 2 had directed the opposite party No. 3 to register the agreement of sale.
3. While assailing the impugned order dated 21.9.1979 as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition, petitioner’s counsel submits that in pursuance to provision contained in Section 73 of the Act it was incumbent for the private opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 to file an application within 30 days. Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act is not applicable in the present proceedings. Accordingly the submission is that the order of condonation of delay subject to payment o
