IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5739 of 2009(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ PAILY, S/O.VARKEY, ANAMTHURUTHIL, HOUSE NO.28/2028,KADAVANTHARA.P.O,KOCHI-682020. BY ADV. SRI.N.M.VARGHESE SRI.PKX.KUNCHERIA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUB REGISTRAR,ERNAKULAM, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR,SOUTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682016. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 5739 OF 2009 (J) ==================== Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The alleged refusal on the part of the 2nd respondent to register Ext.P1 deed of settlement, is what is complained of in this writ petition. In several cases of this nature, this Court has already held that if a document is presented for registration, it is the duty of the Registrar to accept the document, take steps for its registration and take further action as is deemed necessary. 2. In this case also in view of the allegation of the petitioner that the original of Ext.P1 was refused to be accepted for registration, I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to produce the original of Ext.P1 along with a copy of this judgment. Once the document is produced as above, the 2nd respondent shall take steps for its registration, and if necessary, take further action as is permissible under the Registration Act and the Stamp Act. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp