RAGHUVIR NARAIN RASTOGI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved in the present writ petition is that whether the Registrar has got power to condone the delay in pursuance to power conferred by Section 5 of the Limitation Act or in pursuance to any provision contained in Registration Act, 1908 (in short hereinafter referred as Act) in case an application is submitted under Section 73 of the Act beyond the period of limitation provided under the said section?

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner had entered into an agreement on 1.5.1978 with opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 in respect of sale of House No. 222/2 (ga) situated at Raja Bazar, Lucknow for a sum of Rs. 80,000 and taken advance of Rs. fifteen thousand. After execution of agreement a sum of Rs. 20 thousand was again received by the petitioner. A copy of agreement has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 moved an application dated 13.9.1978 before opposite party No. 3, i.e., Sub-Registrar, Lucknow for the registration of agreement dated 1.5.1978. The opposite party No. 3 had issued a notice and directed the petitioner to appear for the execution of agreement. However, after going through the record by order dated 7.2.1979 the opposite party No. 3 had declined to register the agreement. Thereafter, petitioner had returned the amount of Rs. 35 thousand by cheque dated 14.2.1979 along with letter dated 14.2.1979. Instead of accepting the amount opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 had preferred an appeal/application under Section 73 of the Indian Registration Act before opposite party No. 2, i.e., District Magistrate/ Additional District Magistrate, Lucknow on 9.3.1979. In response of application of opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 Misc. Case No. 1 of 1979 was registered for adjudication of controversy in accordance to law. The application dated 9.3.1979 has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. An application for condonation of delay was also filed along with appeal. In response thereof petitioner had filed his reply dated 7th July 1979 a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The case was heard on 22.8.1979 by opposite party No. 2 along with application for condonation of delay. The opposite party No. 2 had condoned the delay on payment of cost and also extended the period for registration of agreement twice. Copy of order passed by the opposite party No. 2 dated 12.9.1978 and 3.1.1979 have been filed as Annexures-6 and 7 respectively to the writ petition. Order dated 12.9.1978 shows that the application of Nizamuddin Kudurti (father of opposite party No. 4) was allowed in pursuance to Section 25 of the Registration Act on payment of the cost of Rs. 60 as penalty and the period was extended for four months for the purpose of registration of document, and the Sub-Registrar was directed to register the document. By order dated 3.1.1979 filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition the period was further extended on payment of Rs. 60 as penalty for a month purported to be power conferred by Section 25 of the Registration Act. Petitioner had applied for certified copy of the order dated 12.9.1978 followed by order dated 3.1.1979 by moving appropriate application but failed to get a copy as appears from averment made in para 12 of the writ petition. Thereafter by impugned order dated 21.9.1979 as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition again the opposite party No. 2 had directed the opposite party No. 3 to register the agreement of sale.

(3.) While assailing the impugned order dated 21.9.1979 as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition, petitioner's counsel submits that in pursuance to provision contained in Section 73 of the Act it was incumbent for the private opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 to file an application within 30 days. Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act is not applicable in the present proceedings. Accordingly the submission is that the order of condonation of delay subject to payment of penalty or cost passed on 12.9.1978 followed by order dated 3.1.1979 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition was without jurisdiction. Accordingly the consequential order dated 21.9.1979 vitiates and not tenable under law. A delayed application could not have been entertained by the opposite parties.