IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12960 of 2001 1. Jugal Singh. 2. Ram Brikchha Singh. 3. Dukhit Singh. 4. Lagan Dev Singh. 5. Lakshman Singh. All sons of Late Pyare Singh, Resident of Village-Nayagaon, P.S.-Desri, district- Vaishali. …………………………………. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Inspector General, Registration-cum-Special Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Collector-cum-Registrar Registration, Vaishali, District-Vaishali. 4. The Sub-Registrar, Registration, Mahnar, District- Vaishali. 5. Raj Kumari Devi, wife of Late Shyam Nandan Thakur. 6. Ashok Kumar Thakur, son of Late Shyam Nandan Thakur. 7. Ramesh Kumar Thakur, son of Late shyam Nandan Thakur. 8. Naresh Kumar Thakur, son of Late Shyam Nandan Thakur. 9. Mahesh Kumar Thakur, son of Late Shyam Nandan Thakur. Petitioners 5 to 9 are resident of Taiyabpur, P.S.-Desri, District- Vaishali. …………………………………… Respondents ----------- 4 8/4/2009 Heard Mr. Keshav Srivastava, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, counsel for the State as also counsel for the private respondents. Prayer of the petitioners in this writ application reads as follows : - “That this writ application is directed to quash Annexure-1 the order dated 2.6.2001 passed by Collector-cum-Registrar, Registration, Vaishali in Registration Appeal No. 67/95-96, 68/95-96, 69/95-96, 70/95-96, 2 71/95-96 and 72/95-96 whereby and whereunder he has wrongly and arbitrarily allowed the aforesaid Appal which was earlier dismissed by his predecessor vide order dated 12.2.93 in Misc. Case no. 17/92- 93.” Counsel for the private respondents has submitted that in view of earlier inter party findings recorded by this Court in the order dated 10.1.1995 in C.W.J.C. No. 4477 of 1993 (Annexure-3) filed by the private respondents this writ application on the grounds mentioned therein is not maintainable. This Court in the aforesaid earlier order dated 10.1.1995 had held as follows:- “From the contents of the writ petition as well as counter affidavits filed, there does not seem to be any dispute that all the documents had been executed on 1.10.1991 by the respondent no.5, in favour of the petitioner. From Annexure-1, a letter of the Sub-Registrar, Mahnar to the Deputy Collector, incharge Legal Section, Hazipur, it appears that on 30.1.1992, the Sub-Registrar brought to the notice of the Deputy Collector, Legal Section, through this letter that the documents had been presented, but because there was enhancement of registration fee at the rate of 3 Rs. 105/- per thousand the stamps on which the sale deeds had been prescribed had been purchased between 27.3.1991 and 1.10.1991 and so the deficit stamp fee of registration to the tune of Rs.1205/- is required on each of the documents. This letter, Annexure-1,definitely shows that the documents had already been presented for registration and the objection of the Sub-Registrar was only regarding payment of some deficit stamp fee. By the impugned order, Annexure-4, learned Collector seems to have assumed that the documents were not presented for registration within four months. The assumption is obviously wrong and is definitely falsified by the contents of Annexure-1. Of course respondent no.5 seems to have taken stand that she had not been paid the entire consideration money but that was not a matter to be examined at this stage. Since Annexure-4 seems to be based on a wrong assumption that the documents had not been presented within four months and it goes beyond the reference made by the Sub-Registrar, Annexure-1, it is legally un- sustainable. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and Annexure-4 is quashed. The concerned respondents shall proceed to deal with the documents presented, in accordance with law.” In the opinion of this Court, stand taken by counsel for the private respondents is perfectly correct. This Court in its earlier interparte order had 4 virtually settled the matter and the last line of the order directing the official respondents to proceed to deal with the documents presented in accordance with law, will mean nothing more than doing the residuary clerical job of registering the documents of the private respondent upon removal of discrepancy in shortage in the stamp duty. Once that was removed the impugned order passed by the Collector of the District purportedly under section 73 of the Registration Act, cannot be faulted, because the Collector of the district was bound to comply the earlier order of this Court dated 10.1.1995. That being so, submission of Mr. Srivastava that as a matter of fact the document was not presented within the period of four months and as such could not have been registered and that impugned order of the Collector is not a speaking order, cannot be now accepted by this Court because this Court cannot sit in appeal in respect of the findings recorded in the order dated 10.1.1995 in C.W.J.C. No. 4477/1993 between the same parties. 5 That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar