1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.4824 of 2011 R.Raj Kapoor : Petitioner Vs The Sub Registrar Sivakasi Virudhunagar District : Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to register the certified copy of the decree in O.S.No. 22 of 2010 dated 22.10.10 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi which had been presented by the petitioner for registration on 25.02.11. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Namiselvan For Respondent : Mr.K.Balasubramanian Additional Government Pleader O R D E R Mr.K.Balasubramanian, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner, who had filed a suit in O.S.No. 22 of 2010 on the file of the learned Subordinate Court, Sivakasi, had obtained an ex- parte decree for cancelling the sale deed, dated 24.11.2005, bearing Document No. 5537 of 2005 and another sale deed, dated 25.11.2005 bearing Document No. 5543 of 2005, respectively. The decree was passed as early as on 22.10.2010. A copy of the Judgment and decree was received by him, on 17.02.2011. Thereafter, he made a representation to the respondent, on 25.02.2011 calling upon the respondent to register the decree and make necessary endorsement in the book so that the encumbrance will carry this. At the time of filing the Writ Petition, since no order has been passed in the said representation, he has come forward with this Writ Petition. 3. Today, the petitioner has produced the endorsement on his application on 25.04.2011, which would state that the respondent may approach the Court and get order copy. Therefore, he would only contend that as per Section 23 of the Registration Act, there is a provision of registering the decree within a period of four months, since he has applied, he may be considered. Now that petition has been returned, he will represent the same along with the decree and Judgment copy and it may be considered. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader would only contend that they had only sought for Judgment copy as the decree copy alone is produced. He would further submit that if the application is presented properly with all relevant documents in accordance with law, they will consider the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. Heard both parties. 6. Since the request of the petitioner is limited that his representation, dated 25.02.2011 may be considered to register the decree passed by the Civil Court and now that, the endorsement has been made on 25.04.2011 stating that the orders to be obtained from the Court as already Civil Court has passed the Judgment and decree as early as on 22.10.2010 and the copy itself was received on 17.02.2011. If the petitioner presents the certified copy of the decree and Judgment along with the representation, dated 25.02.2011, the respondent will consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law for registering the same in the register. 7. With the above said direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Sub Registrar Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, 15269 vsg SR : 03.05.2011 : 2p/3c W.P.(MD).No.4824 of 2011 26.04.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/