C.W.P No.8822 of 2004 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. C.W.P No.8822 of 2004 Date of Decision: 15.07.2008 Nishan Singh ....Petitioner. Versus The Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala etc. ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the State. Mr. Narinder Lucky, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. ... J.S. Khehar, J. Bikkar Singh respondent No.2 herein filed a civil suit at Kapurthala praying for a decree for permanent injunction so as to restrain Nishan Singh i.e. the petitioner herein from alienating the suit land situated in village Karahal Khurd, P.O. Bhanalonga, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, on the plea that Nishan Singh i.e. the petitioner herein had already executed a sale deed dated 4.5.2001 in his favour and in the favour of Gurdial Singh respondent No.3 herein. Since the petitioner Nishan Singh was not getting the sale deed C.W.P No.8822 of 2004 2 dated 4.5.2001 registered, respondent No.2 Bikkar Singh filed an application under section 32 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 1908 Act) before the Sub Registrar, Kapurthala, for the registration of the sale deed dated 4.5.2001. Summons were, accordingly, issued to the petitioner Nishan Singh by the Sub Registrar, Kapurthala. The aforesaid application was, however, declined on 30.7.2001. Bikkar Singh respondent No.2 then filed an appeal against the order dated 30.7.2001 before the Registrar, Kapurthala. The aforesaid appeal was also dismissed. Bikkar Singh was, however, permitted to file an application under section 73 of the 1908 Act, which expressly lays down the procedure for filing an application to the Registrar where there is denial for registration of sale deed. On the disposal of the matter initiated under Section 32 of the 1908 Act, Bikkar Singh in terms of the liberty granted to him, moved an application under Section 73 of the 1908 Act, seeking a direction to the Sub Registrar, Kapurthala, to register the sale deed executed by the petitioner on 4.5.2001. While adjudicating upon the aforesaid matter, the Registrar, Kapurthala, permitted Bikkar Singh respondent No.2 to lead his evidence. On the basis of the evidence produced by Bikkar Singh, the Registrar, Kapurthala, arrived at the conclusion, that Nishan Singh i.e. the petitioner herein had executed a sale deed of his land in favour of Bikkar Singh for a consideration of Rs.2,03,500/-. He also arrived at the conclusion, that a balance of Rs.22,000/- was payable by Bikkar Singh respondent No.2 at the time of registration of the sale deed before the Sub Registrar. The Registrar, Kapurthala, also held that Nishan Singh i.e. the petitioner herein had deliberately not appeared before the Sub Registrar, Kapurthala, for the C.W.P No.8822 of 2004 3 registration of the sale deed executed on 4.5.2001. Accordingly, the Registrar, Kapurthala, directed the Sub Registrar, Kapurthala, to accept a sum of Rs.22,000/- as balance consideration and to register the sale deed dated 4.5.2001. The order dated 30.12.2003 has been impugned by the petitioner. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was, that two proceedings cannot be initiated by the same person on the same cause of action. In this behalf, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the civil suit filed by Bikkar Singh (referred to above), as also, the proceedings initiated by him under the provisions of the 1908 Act. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order which has been passed on 30.12.2003 (Annexure P-6) be set aside to await the final decision in the civil suit which came to be filed well before the proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the 1908 Act. Having considered the first contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner, as has been noticed in the foregoing paragraph, we find no merit therein. The initiation of the proceedings before the civil Court was for an entirely different purpose than the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the 1908 Act. Before the civil Court, respondent No.2 sought permanent injunction so as to restrain the petitioner Nishan Singh from further selling the land in respect of which he had already executed a sale deed dated 4.5.2001 in favour of respondent No.2, whereas, the proceeding initiated by the petitioner under the provisions of the 1908 Act, was in order to get the sale deed (executed on 4.5.2001) registered since the transfer made in the sale deed pertained to immovable property. On account of the C.W.P No.8822 of 2004 4 fact, that totally different issues were involved in the proceedings initiated by Bikkar Singh respondent No.2 in the civil suit, as well as, under the provisions of the 1908 Act, we find no merit in the first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that respondent No.2 Bikkar Singh, in the first instance, with a malafide intention filed an application under section 32 of the 1908 Act, which was clearly not maintainable. Having done so, he was precluded from moving any such application under section 73 of the 1908 Act. It is, therefore, submitted that the order passed on 30.7.2001, dismissing the application filed by Bikkar Singh respondent No.2 should be treated as final for all intents and purposes. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view, that the same is also devoid of merit. A perusal of the order passed in the appeal by the Registrar, Kapurthala, wherein the aforesaid order dated 30.7.2001 was challenged by Bikkar Singh respondent No.2, liberty was expressly granted to him i.e. Bikkar Singh respondent No.2 to file an application under section 73 of the 1908 Act. It is in obedience to the aforesaid liberty granted to Bikkar Singh respondent No.2, that the said application was filed by him. We find no malafide, whatsoever, as has been alleged by the petitioner. We also find no illegality in the action of Bikkar Singh respondent No.2 in moving an application under section 73 of the 1908 Act to enforce the registration of the sale deed executed between the parties on 4.5.2001. No other contention besides the ones noticed in the foregoing C.W.P No.8822 of 2004 5 paragraph, was advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Finding no merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we hereby dismiss the instant writ petition. This Court by an order dated 3.7.2004 had stayed the proceedings before the appropriate authority till further orders. Now that the instant writ petition has been dismissed, we hereby direct the Sub Registrar, Kapurthala, to implement the order dated 30 12.2003 (Annexure P-6) within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the instant order. The sequence of facts narrated in the instant writ petition reveals, that despite the execution of the sale dated dated 4.5.2001 between the parties, the petitioner herein devised ways and means to subvert the process of law. The acts and actions of the petitioner prima-facie reveal breach of trust and cheating. The Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala, who has passed the impugned order dated 30.12.2003 (Annexure P-6) in his capacity as Registrar, Kapurthala, shall get the matter examined and register a First Information Report, if made out. A copy of this order shall be furnished to the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala, by the Registrar General of this Court. On account of harassment caused by the petitioner to respondents No.2 and 3, who had to initiate proceedings before a civil Court, to file repeated petitions before the Registrar, Kapurthala, under the provisions of 1908 Act, as also, to face an absolutely frivolous petition before this Court, we are satisfied that exemplary costs are called for. The instant writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with costs quantified as Rs.10,000/-. The said costs shall be paid to Bikkar Singh, who bore the C.W.P No.8822 of 2004 6 brunt of the action of the petitioner Nishan Singh in not getting the sale deed dated 4.5.2001 registered. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg ) Judge. 15.07.2008 sk.