Pendency of civil suit without injunction does not bar document registration; refusal order must be speaking and follow natural justice.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated

16.09.2025 passed by the first respondent, refusing to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner for registration on the ground that there is a civil suit pending over the very same property.

2. According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner of the property morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition. According to the petitioner, the civil court has not restrained the Registration Department from registering any document. Therefore, according to him, by total non application of mind, the impugned order has been passed.

3. The petitioner has also challenged the impugned order on the ground that it is a non speaking order with regard to the contentions of the petitioner and on the ground that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of the impugned order.

4. Mr. P. Harish, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of R1 and Mr. V. Meganathan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) accepts notice on behalf of R2. Since no adverse orders are passed against the respondents 3 and 4, notice to the respondents 3 and 4 is dispensed with by this Court.

5. Admittedly, there is no interim injunction granted against the first respondent, not to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner for registration. Only based on the pendency of the civil suit, the first respondent has refused to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner for registration.

6. As seen from the impugned order dated 16.09.2025, the petitioner’s contentions as raised in this writ petition along with the petitioner’s supporting documents have not been considered by the first respondent. The petitioner was also not afforded any opportunity of hearing by the first respondent prior to passing of the impugned order dated 16.09.2025.

7. Since the impugned order dated 16.09.2025 is a non-speaking order and is an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, necessarily, the impugned order dated 16.09.2025 has to be quashed and the matter has to be remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.

8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.09.2025 issued by the first respondent is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law. The petitioner shall submit a written explanation to the first respondent along with supporting documents, stating as to why there is no legal impediment for the first respondent to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner for registration within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, within the stipulated time, the first respondent after giving due consideration to the written explanation submitted by the petitioner and the supporting documents produced by the petitioner, shall take a final decision as to whether the sale deed presented by the petitioner can be registered or not within a period of four weeks thereafter.

9. In case, the first respondent decides to refuse registration of the sale deed presented by the petitioner, the first respondent shall pass a speaking order, after giving due consideration to the contentions of the petitioner as well as the supporting documents produced by the petitioner.

10. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitio