SINGHASAN PRASAD Vs. COLLECTOR KUSHINAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate case where the vendor has virtually made the petitioner and the contesting respondents an object of a legal circus, where none of the litigants, in the proceedings which are going on, are to achieve anything.

(2.) The respondent No. 5 Shyam Lal is said to have received certain amount from the petitioner and a sale-deed was prepared for being executed and registered in favour of the petitioner in the year 2006. The sale-deed is said to have been prepared on 29.8.2006.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that when the sale-deed was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Shyam Lal by making an excuse of going to the toilet ran away from the office of the Sub-Registrar, as a result whereof, the sale-deed could not be registered. In such a situation, the consequence and the remedy provided for is contained in sections 72 and 73 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. It appears that no proper advice was given to the petitioner and at least there is nothing on record to indicate the same where after a civil suit was filed by the petitioner and a criminal prosecution has also been attempted by moving an application under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is alleged that the civil suit is still pending in which an injunction order was passed on 25.2.2010. A copy of the order passed in the civil suit is Annexure RA-5 to the rejoinder affidavit.