$-22 «■ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 1307/20.01 ■ / ' . , . DIVINE UNITED ORGANISATION , - ..... Plaintiff . ' - Through: , Mr. Samrat Nigam, Adv. Versus . / " REGISTRAR (SOUTH) & ANR. J ■ • - ' - Through: None. (fORAM: ' " ijlON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ORDER , Defendants, ■ 1 2 3 0 - d 4 10.11.2016 This suit was filed under Section, 77 of-the Registration Act; .1908 with respect to the refusal of,the Sub Registrar to_ whom a document-was presented for registration to register the same and, the dismissal of the. appeal-, preferred by the plaintiff against the said refusal to The Registrar under the Registration Act.. "A ■ , '' The suit was entertained and pleadings completed; . - The document which'was presented for registration was a lease-deed f an agricultural la.nd- by the Gadn Sabha, S.hahpUr in favour of the plaintiff, fl he .plaintiff, in the. plaint, has, merely pleaded haying corne into possession f the land ahcj having-remained in, possession of the.land for long and aving represented to the Gaon Sabha for grant of lease and which'was Itimately agreed' to by; the Gaon Sabha during the' course of legal proceedings preceding the present suit- and; in; pursuance whereto the ocumerit is stated to have been executed-arid presented for registration. The document was not registered by the. Sub Registrar because the Gaon Sabha, by the tiine the document was pfesented'for registration, stood S(OS) 1307/2001 ^ , , ■ Page 1 of 3 \ Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified Ml superseded and, the Block Development Officer who had taken over the ' functions of the Gaon Sabhadnforrhing the Sub Registrardhat the document be not registered. .5. Oh 22"*^ February, 2006' when the suit was listed before the Court, none appeared for the plaintiff. The counsel for the defendants Sub- Registrar and Registrar informed the Cpurt on that date that the plaintiff hud filed W.P.(C) No.40/2001 impugning the action of reneging from lease and cancelling the, allotment earlier made in'favour'of the plaintiff and which' writ petition was pending ^consideration and the question of registration would arise only if the plaintiff succeeded in that writ petition and in'which eventuality the defendants'would, abide by the order in. the writ petition. Recording the aforesaid statement of the counsel for the defendants, the suit, on 22"^* February, 2006, was disposed, of. - : .' ^ ' 6. The plaintiff filed Review Application No. 19/2006. 7. Accepting the contention pfAhe plaintiff that upon failure of the plaintiff/review petitioner fo .appear before the court on 22"' February, 2006 the suit could at.bes^ have'been dismissed in default and not,disposed of as done,-without going into the merits of the submissions of the counsel for the plaintiff, the review petition was allowed on 4"' February, 2009 and the suit • restored to its original position. - i > 8. ^However on the very next date i.e.'27"' April, 2009 the plaintiff itself sought adjoumrnent of the suit sine die awaiting the outcome of the writ n petition aforesaid and the .'proceedings in the suit were,so adjourned sine die' with liberty to the parties to apply for revival as and when need arose. CS(OSj 1307/2001 , . - Page 2 of 3' ' 9. - Neither party applied for revival and.the Registry of this court of its own listed the suit on 14'!^ October, 20.15 and whereafter it is being adjourned. , ' : . 10. On 8"" November, 2016 the counsel for the plaintiff again sought adjournment of the suit sine die contending that the, proceedings before the Division Bench were still pending. However the same was refused and' the matter posted for today for hearing. - 11.. I have today enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff, as to how the present suit is maintainable, It has been enquired, that once the executant of the document has taken such a stand, whether the Sub-Registrar or Registrar were empowered to direct registration of the document,, inasmuch as the Sub Registrar and the Registrar under the provisions pf the Registration Act are not empowered: to adjudicate such question. The remedy of the plaintiff in such a situation would only be to file a suit for specific performance and which has not been Tiled. If at all the plaintiff is entitled to any relief, that can be only in the writ petition which, the plaintiff claims to have prefeiTed and thus the present suit, in my opinion, was riot maintainable on ,its inception. N, ' . 12. The counsel for the plaintiff withdraws the suit in view of the order dated 22"^* February, 2006. 13; Dismissed as withdrawn. . No costs. ' NOVEMBER 10, 2016 Bs/pp.. CS(OS) 1307/2001 RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. Page 3. of 3