GURJEET SINGH Vs. SARABJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit was instituted for partition of property No. E-I/23, Lajpat nagar, New Delhi. Vide order dated 2-8-2005 a preliminary decree for partition was passed declaring the plaintiff Gurjeet Singh and defendant No. 1 Sarabjeet Singh to be hold-ing equal share in the property. On 8-8-2005 a final decree of partition was passed and decree sheet was ordered to be drawn up. The record reveals that the Registrar of the court thereafter called upon the parties to file the valuation report from Government approved valuer so that stamp duty for drawing up the decree may be calculated. The parties filed a valuation report but the Registrar was not satisfied with the same. Notice was issued to the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority (CCRA) Delhi, for furnishing the valuation of the property. The valuation report appears to have been received from CCRA in January, 2008, which was accepted by the Registrar and parties were asked to deposit the stamp papers in accordance with the said valuation report given by CCRA. Upon deposit of stamp papers, draft decree was drawn, and after requisite approvals final decree was engrossed on the stamp papers. In accordance with Order 20 rule 7, the decree, even though drawn up in or about March, 2008, bore the date of judgment i. e. 8-8-2005.

(2.) THE defendant No. 1 thereafter applied for release of original decree for enabling its registration. Following the practice direction contained in order dated 24- 9-2007 in CS (OS) 206/2006, the original decree engrossed on stamp papers was ordered to be released to the Defendant No. 1 and was finally delivered to defendant No. l on 3-5-2008.

(3.) THE defendant No. l presented the decree for registration to the Sub-Registrar v. Mehrauli, New Delhi, on 20th June, 2008, but the Registrar has refused to registered the same since the decree bore the date of 8th August, 2005 and the presentation was beyond four months of the said date. Defendant No. 1 has filed this application seeking the directions against the Sub-Registrar v, Mehrauli, New Delhi.