ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

WP(C) No.27912 of 2024

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of

India. ***

Brundaban Muduli

… Petitioner.

-VERSUS-

State of Odisha & Others

… Opposite Parties

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : Mr. H.N. Mohapatra, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. T. Kumar, Addl. Standing Counsel.

(for Opp. Party Nos.1 to 3)

Mr. B.B. Mohapatra, Advocate

(for Opp. Party No.4)

P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing : 18.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment :23.12.2025

JUDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the order of refusal to register the deed for sale of the petitioner passed under Section 71(1) of the Registration Act by the Registering Officer, Kakatpur (Opp.

Party No.3) on dated 12.09.2024.

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Opp. Party No.4 and the learned Addl.

Standing Counsel for the State-Opp. Parties.

3. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, on dated 12.09.2024, the petitioner presented a deed for sale before the Registering Officer, Kakatpur (Opp. Party No.3) for selling his properties covered under the said deed for sale in favour of the Opp. Party No.4, but, the Registering Officer, Kakatpur (Opp. Party No.3) refused to register the same as per Section 71 (1)

of The Indian Registration Act, 1908 applying the provisions of Section 22-A (c) of The Registration Act, 1908 assigning the reasons that, (i) a Civil Suit bearing No.200 of 2024 filed by One Pradeep Muduli against the petitioner of this writ petition in respect of the properties covered in the said deed for sale is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nimapara, Puri for adjudication of the rights of the parties in respect of the properties covered in that deed and if, the registration of the deed for sale shall be made, then, the same may affect the rights of the parties in the Civil Suit and;

(ii) as per Section 52 of the T.P. Act, 1882, during the pendency of the Civil Suit like C.S. No.200 of 2024, the transfer of the properties, those are the subject matter of the Civil Suit cannot be made, because, in case of any transfer through sale deed, the same will affect the right of other parties who has filed the suit.

4. It is pertinent to discuss and analyze the legality and sustainability of the above two grounds/reasons assigned by the Opp. Party No.3 for the refusal of registration of the deed for sale of the petitioner.

5. So far the first ground/reason assigned by the Registering Officer, Kakatpur (Opp. Party No.3) in the impugned order i.e. the Civil Suit bearing No.200 of 2024 filed by One Pradeep Muduli against the petitioner of this writ petition in respect of the properties covered in the said deed for sale is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nimapara, Puri for adjudication of the rights of the parties in respect of the properties covered in that deed and if, the registration of the deed for sale shall be made, then, the same may affect the adjudication of the Civil Suit is concerned;

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:

I. In a case between D. Venkateswar Reddy Vs.

State of Telengana & Others reported in 2021 (4) Civil Court Cases 429 (Tel.) that, the registering authority can be injuncted from entertaining a deed of conveyance or any other document affecting right/interest in a property. As a corollary, mere pendency of an original suit/appellate suit or case before this Court is not a ground to abstain the Sub-Registrar for registering a deed.

II. In a case between Bihar Deed Writers Association and Others Vrs. State of Bihar & Others reported in 1989 (2) Civil Court Cases 172 (Patna) & 1988 SCC Online Patna 142 that, if the tr