Certified copies of Court orders must be accepted by the Sub-Registrar, subject to verification of their correctness.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 30TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 6479 OF 2024 PETITIONER:

SUJA, AGED 57 YEARS, D/O LATE SUDARSANAN, JYOTHIS HOUSE NO: 1099, B E LAY OUT, 2ND BLOCK, VIDAYARNYAPURA, JALAHALLI PO, BANGALORE, PIN – 560013 BY ADV PRAKASH MATHEW RESPONDENTS:

SUB REGISTRAR, ERAVIPURAM, PALLIMUKKU ROAD, KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN - 691021 SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT The petitioner’s singular complaint against the respondent –

Sub Registrar, is that he is refusing to act upon the certified copy of Ext.P1 order, which she has obtained from the Court of the Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram; and prays that he be directed to make necessary entries in Book No.1, as per the Statutory mandate.

2. Sri.Prakash Mathew Panjikaran – learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that, as evident from Ext.P4, the respondent has refused to act upon even a certified copy of the judgment/order of the competent Court, saying that he will do so only if the same is received directly from such Court. He argued that this stand is illegal and unlawful because, certified copies cannot be disregarded by the Registrar on any ground. He thus prayed that Ext.P4 be quashed and the respondent be directed to act upon the certified copy of the order produced by his client, without any avoidable delay.

3. Smt.Vidya Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, submitted that, though the veracity of a certified copy of an order/proceeding from a Court can never be called into question by the respondent, he has acted only with abundant caution because, when orders are produced before the said Authority by parties directly, their credibility cannot be fully established. She, however, submitted that if this Court is inclined to allow the respondent to examine and confirm the veracity of the certified copy of the order appropriately, then she will not stand in the way of an apposite order being issued.

4. When I evaluate and consider the afore submissions, it is indubitable that Ext.P4 appears to have been issued by the respondent by way of caution and under the impression that orders cannot be accepted from parties directly. Though this may be true in the case of ordinary copies, when it comes to a certified copy being produced, the situation becomes definitely different. This is because, certified copies, by its very tenor, are designed to be true copies of the proceedings issued by Courts, issued under the applicable Rules.

5. Obviously, therefore, the Registrar cannot refuse to accept certified copies, though he will be at liberty to verify its correctness through appropriate means.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition and set aside Ext.P4; with a consequential direction to the respondent – Sub Registrar, to reconsider the claim of the petitioner, adverting to the documents produced/to be produced by her; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6479/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL DECREE PASSED BY THE ADDL. SUB JUDGE II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN OS 942/93 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED

23.05.2023 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER TO RESPONDENT DATED 02.11.2023 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER TO PETITIONER DATED 08.11.2023