ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned Order dated

19.07.2013 returning the Court Decree dated 30.12.2004 passed in O.S.No.363 of 2004 passed by the learned District Munsif, Madurantakkam presented by the petitioner for registration and to direct the second respondent to register the same.

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the exparte decree was originally obtained on 30.12.2004 in O.S.No.363 of 2004 and the same was sought to be set aside in I.A.No.405 of 2007 in O.S.No.363 of 2004 which was dismissed on 19.09.2007 against which C.M.A.No.3 of 2008 has been filed and the same was also dismissed on 17.09.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner presented the decree before the second respondent for registration. However, the second respondent returned the decree on the ground that the same has not been filed within 120 days and it has been presented for registration beyond the limitation period.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as far as the decree is concerned, there is no limitation prescribed under Section 23 of the Registration Act to register a decree. This aspect has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in 2007 [2] TCJ 68 and following the same the Single Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.8091, 8093 & 9446 of 2020 has directed the Registration Department to register the decree.

4. Whereas, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that Section 23 of the Registration Act specifically provides time limit of four months for registration of a decree.

Hence, sought for dismissal of this Writ Petition.

5. In this regard it is relevant to note the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, wherein the Division Bench of this Court taking note of various other judgments, in W.A.[MD] No.336 of 2019, in para 21 has held as follows :

“21. By applying the decision in the case of Padala Satyanarayana Murthy to the facts of the case, the only conclusion that could be arrived at is that a Court decree is not compulsorily registerable and that the option lies with the party. In such circumstances, the law laid down by this Court clearly states that the limitation prescribed under the Act would not stand attracted.”

6. Considering the above judgment, the Single Bench of this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.[MD] Nos.8091, 8093 & 9446 of 2020 has held as follows :

“17. It is clear from the above that the limitation prescribed under the Act will not stand attracted insofar as an order or decree passed by a competent court is concerned. This judgment has also been subsequently followed in the latest judgment by a Division Bench in W.A.(MD)No.902 of 2021, dated 26.04.2021. Therefore, this ratio has been consistently followed till date. 18.This court does not find any contradiction in the subsequent judgment rendered in W.A.(MD)No.336 of 2019 with the earlier view of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.2395 of 2003. 19.It will be relevant to take note of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and also the Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court for the preposition that where a later Bench considers the decision of an earlier Bench and passes a judgment, the later decision will bind a single Judge.

a) In the case of P.Murugan Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal reported in 2017 SCC online Madras 4187. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder.

“52.Yet another reason, as to why, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when there are two decisions, on the point of law, the judgment rendered at a later point of time, proximate and which has considered the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, will prevail over the former. Reference can be made to few decisions, (i) In D.V. Lakshmana Rao v. State of Karnataka reported in

2001 (4) KAR.L.J. 185, the Karantaka High Court has held thus:

“It is now well-settled that if there are two confli