AB REHMAN MIR Vs. ARSHAD RENZOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts material for disposal of this writ petition may be noticed. Refusal to register two sale deeds because of non -appearance of the executants became subject matter of appeals before the Registrar which came to be dismissed for default of appearance by order dated 15 -02 -2003, consequently, applications for restoration of appeals. The said applications were allowed by the Registrar and appeals restored by order dated 16 -03 -2003 which is assailed by medium of this writ petition on several grounds which need not be addressed to, for, same have been given up by the learned counsel for the petitioners excepting the ground that in absence of power to restore the appeals dismissed for default of appearance, the order is without jurisdiction.

(2.) IN the aforementioned factual matrix, a short but an important question arises which may be summarized:

(3.) TO have the answer in affirmative to the question of law so formulated, reliance is placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on a judicial decision of this court in Shri Madan Lal versus Dina Nath Dhar and others (AIR 1972 JK 15) but judgement is distinguishable and is of no help to the contention, for, that was held maintainable in view of attending circumstances thereof. More so, the question of power of Registrar to restore the appeal/application, dismissed for default of appearance, was not deliberated upon by the Bench, rightly so because that was not the issue in the lis. Regarding power of restoration, undoubtedly the Registration Act does not contain any provision empowering the Registrar to restore an appeal/application dismissed in default and absence of provision thereto attracts application of section 21 of the General Clauses Act 1977 which is reproduced hereunder: