HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY Dated: 18-01-2010 WRIT APPEAL No. 1484 OF 2009 Between: The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District (East), at L.B Nagar and another ... APPELLANTS AND Smt. Molugu Shyamala ... RESPONDENT HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1484 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Feeling aggrieved by order dated 02-12-2009 in WPMP No. 32320 of 2009 and WVMP No. 4039 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. 24818 of 2009, the respondents in the writ petition filed the present appeal. The respondent herein presented certain documents executed by her mother in her capacity as General Power of Attorney for registration before appellant No.2. As no decision was taken thereon, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 1282 of 2009, which was disposed of by this Court with the direction to appellant No.2 to take a decision regarding the registration. Accordingly, appellant No.2 passed order dated 09-09-2009 refusing to register the documents on the ground that they were presented far beyond the time stipulated under Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’). The said order was questioned in Writ Petition No. 24818 of 2009. Initially, the learned single Judge issued interim direction on 17- 11-2009 to appellant No.2 to register the documents and release them, as per law. The appellants thereafter filed their counter affidavit along with the vacate stay application which has been dismissed by the learned single Judge by the order impugned in this appeal. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue strenuously contended that the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, which was made absolute later has the effect of allowing the writ petition itself. He also submitted that under Section 23 of the Act, a document is required to be submitted for registration within four months of its execution and under Section 25, the registering authority has the discretion to condone the delay to the extent of four months, if proper reasons are made out. According to the learned Government Pleader, the documents were executed on 28-09-2008, while they were presented for the first time on 05-08-2009 and, that therefore, even the grace period of four months stipulated under Section 25 of the Act had expired. Sri K. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the documents were initially submitted for registration on 21-01-2009 and that as they were not received, his client was constrained to file the writ petition, which was disposed of by this Court with the direction to appellant No.2 to take an appropriate decision regarding registration. According to the learned counsel, as the documents were initially presented within the time, the learned single Judge was justified in directing appellant No.2 to register and release the documents. Since the main writ petition is pending, we feel it is not appropriate to render conclusive findings on the above mentioned controversy. The entitlement of the respondent for registration of the documents depends upon the compliance with the provisions of Sections 23 and 25 of the Act. Whether the respondent has complied with the said provisions, which prima facie appears to be mandatory or not requires to be decided in the writ petition. Therefore, in our opinion, it is not a case where the respondent is entitled to an interim direction, as was granted by the learned single Judge and was made absolute subsequently, because such a relief can be granted to the respondent only on the specific finding being rendered by this Court that the respondent has presented the documents within the time stipulated by the statute. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained on the facts of this case. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. Order dated 02-12-2009 is set aside and WVMP No.4039 of 2009 is allowed. Since the issue pertains to registration and release of documents, we find it necessary to decide the writ petition at an early date. The Registry is directed to post the writ petition for final hearing on 08-02-2010 before the appropriate Court. As a sequel to the above, WAMP No. 3093 of 2009 filed by the appellants for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18-01-2010 ks