JUDGMENT :

MANISH KUMAR, J.

1. In compliance of order of this Court dated 13.04.2022, the affidavit of service has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner enclosing therewith the notices published in two newspapers i.e. Amar Ujala and Times of India as well as the notice pasted on the door of the Respondent No. 4. Despite the notice published in the new papers, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondent no. 4.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The present petition has been preferred for quashing of the appellate order dated 15.12.2021 passed by Additional District Magistrate (F&R) Sultanpur and the order dated 12.11.2018 passed by Sub-Registrar, Tehsil Sadar, District - Sultanpur refusing to register the document namely the sale deed said to be executed in favour of the petitioner.

4. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner are that on 11.07.2018 the instrument was presented in the office of Sub-Registrar for the purpose of registration of the sale deed executed by one Tufail Ahmad - Respondent No. 4 in favour of the petitioner. After the enquiry as provided under Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908, when the document was to be registered, Tufail Ahmad went away from the office of the Sub-Registrar. The Sub-Registrar vide its order dated 12.11.2018 had rejected the application for registration of the instrument as time barred with the finding that despite notice/summon to the Tufail Ahmad, he had not appeared. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate (F&R) District Sultanpur and in the appeal vide order dated 15.12.2021 an order has been passed staying the proceedings of Appeal and file was consigned to record, feeling aggrieved by these orders, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the registering authority has wrongly refused to register the instrument as the same was presented by executor and the signature had been made on the same in the office of Sub Registrar. It is further submitted that after the signature made and accepting the consideration amount, the presence of the seller is not required for the purpose of registration of the documents as the formalities had already been completed. It is further submitted that the authorities had not registered the instrument till the period of limitation and after that rejected the same as time barred. It is further submitted that the authorities are bound to register the document as per section 35(1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908. It is further submitted that the appellate authority had passed the order without application of mind and, hence it is liable to be quashed.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that there is no illegality in the orders impugned as passed by the Respondent No. 2 and 3 respectively.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record and the provisions of Registration Act, 1908, where it has been provided that no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the persons executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation.

8. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner that his case is squarely covered under Section 35(1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908 and hence the Sub-Registrar is under obligation to register the instrument. For convenience Section 35(1)(c) is quoted herein-below:

“if the person executing the document is dead, and his representative or assign appears before the registering officer and admits the execution, the registering officer shall register the document as directed in sections 58 to 61 inclusive.”

9. In the present case, it is still not confirmed that Respondent No. 4 is dead or alive, and his representative i.e. wife appeared and moved an application for reca