IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.8684 OF 2009 1. LAKSHMI NARAYAN GUPTA, SON OF LATE RAM PRIT PRASD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA JANKI ASTHAN, SITAMARHI, P.O. AND P.S. SITAMARHI, DISTRICT SITAMARHI 2. MEENA GUPTA, WIFE OF SHRI PASHUPATI NATH GUPTA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA JANKI ASTHAN, SITAMARHI, P.O. AND P.S. SITAMARHI, DISTRICT SITAMARHI 3. KRISHNA GUPTA, WIFE OF LAKSHMI NARAYAN GUPTA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA JANKI ASTHAN, SITAMARHI, P.O. AND P.S. SITAMARHI, DISTRICT SITAMARHI ……………………………………………………….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (REGISTRATION), GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, SITAMARHI –CUM- DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SITAMARHI 4. THE DISTRICT SUB-REGISTRAR, SITAMARHI 5. SHRI VIJAY MISHRA, SON OF LATE RAGHUNATH DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JANKI ASTHAN, WARD NO. 2, P.O., P.S. AND DISTRICT SITAMARHI ………………………………………………….RESPONDENTS ********* 4 22/09/2011 Shortly stated the facts of this case are that the petitioners had entered into an agreement with one Binod Mishra and Vijay Mishra to purchase a piece of land. Binod Mishra and Vijay Mishra are brothers. At the stage of execution of the sale deed, Vijay Mishra did not appear before the Sub-Registrar, as a result of which the sale deed could not be executed. The petitioners prayed for extension of time on two occasions before the Sub Registrar in order to present Vijay Mishra for the purposes of execution of the sale deed. The Sub Registrar eventually rejected the third 2 application filed for extension of time. Thereafter, the petitioners moved before the Registrar under Section 73 of the Registration Act. The Registrar has disposed of the application vide order dated 03.03.2003, which was challenged by the petitioners on 19.07.2005. The Court after considering the entire facts has observed as follows:- “The best course would be, therefore, to direct the petitioner to approach the Sub Registrar afresh with the sale deed along with the vendor, so that the same can be registered and accordingly the writ petition is disposed of by issuing said directions.” Counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ application filed aforesaid does not decide the issues as to whether the Registrar/Sub Registrar can be directed to take action under Section 73 of the Registration Act. According to Section 73 of the Registration act, when a Sub Registrar refuses to register a document on the ground that any person by whom it purports to be executed, or his representative or assignee, denies its execution. He may under such circumstances within thirty days after the making of the order of refusal, apply to the Registrar to whom such Sub Registrar is subordinate, in order to establish his right to have the document registered. 3 It would firstly appear that the Sub-Registrar has not passed any order in exercise of his power under Section 73 of the Act. Section 73 of the Act as mentioned above gives liberty to the vendee to make an application for compulsory registration of the deed, after giving notice to the vendor(s). If the vendor(s) do not appear before the authorities concerned, on refusal by the Sub-Registrar to register the deed, an application may be filed before the Registrar. If the Registrar refuses to execute the deed, then the vendee would have the liberty under Section 77 of the Act to file a suit. In this case, it would appear that the Registrar on the basis of a false impression that the petitioner is seeking extension of time for registration has passed the impugned order as contained in Annexure-6 dated 03.03.2003 and 09.05.2003. The application filed by the petitioner is contained in Annexure-5, which indicates that it was an application under Section 73 of the Act. The petitioner being aggrieved by Annexure-3 has come to this Court and filed a writ application. This Court disposed of the writ application as mentioned above by asking the petitioner to approach the Sub- Registrar afresh along with vendor(s). The petitioner 4 has not been able to persuade the vendor(s) to appear before the Sub-Registrar. Therefore, the proper procedure for the petitioner would be to approach the Registrar for compulsory registration under Section 73 of the Act. The Registrar will issue notice to the vendor(s), consider all the facts and thereafter pass an appropriate order either executing the sale deed or refusing to execute the sale deed. This Court quashes the order contained in Annexure-6 dated 03.03.2003 and 09.05.2003 and directs the petitioner to take fresh steps as directed above. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)