SBCWP No.243/2009 Hira Lal Vs. Harshad & Ors. 1 SBCWP No.243/2009 Hira Lal Vs. Harshad & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 16.3.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Suresh Shrimali, for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 19.11.2008 passed on petitioner's application filed under Section 151 CPC by which the petitioner's-plaintiff's prayer for issuing direction to the District Collector (Stamps), Pali and District Collector, Sirohi for registration of the two documents (Ex.1 and 3) was refused. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed the suit for possession wherein he produced two documents (Ex.1 and 3). Ex.1 is alleged to be a written partition deed and Ex.3 was alleged to be an admission of the partition. The objection was raised by the defendants against admitting the documents in evidence on the ground that the documents are not properly stamped nor they have been got registered and the documents were required to be SBCWP No.243/2009 Hira Lal Vs. Harshad & Ors. 2 compulsorily registered. On this objection, the trial court passed the order on 6th Sept., 2006 holding that both the documents should have been executed on proper stamp papers and should have been got registered. Instead of refusing the admission of the document in evidence, the learned Judge directed the District Collector, Sirohi to impound the documents and determine the stamp duty and penalty and in addition to that also directed the District Collector to recover the proper stamp duty and penalty if levied and, thereafter register the document. That order dated 6th Sept., 2006 has not been challenged by any of the parties inspite of the fact that before the trial court, the original document Ex.1 and 3 were not on record and there was direction to register the documents. It appears that original documents were submitted before the Collector (Stamp), Pali, Circle Pali, upon which, the order was passed for determining proper stamp duty and penalty, which appears to have been paid by the petitioner-plaintiff receipt of which has been placed on record in the writ petition at page no.40. The document was not registered by the Registrar concerned then the SBCWP No.243/2009 Hira Lal Vs. Harshad & Ors. 3 plaintiff moved one application under Section 151 CPC and pointed out that the plaintiff has paid the stamp duty and penalty as determined the competent authority, therefore, now the direction may be issued to the District Collector for registration of the above two documents (Ex.1 and 3) on the ground that the trial court already ordered for registration of the documents in order dated 6th Sept., 2006. The trial court rejected the application merely on the ground that plaintiff himself submitted application on 19th Sept., 2007 stating therein that not only stamp duty has been properly paid, but the documents have been registered on 1st Sept., 2007, therefore, no further direction can be issued. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial court already by order dated 6th Sept., 2006 directed the concerned authority – District Collector who is registering authority to register the documents after taking stamp duty and penalty and since the District Collector concerned has not registered the documents, therefore, it was the duty of the court to issue appropriate direction for registration of the documents. SBCWP No.243/2009 Hira Lal Vs. Harshad & Ors. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that even if a party doe not appear before the Sub-Registrar for the purpose of admitting the document even then under Section 73 of the Registration Act, 1908, the Registrar is required to follow the procedure as provided under Section 74 and, thereafter, pass the order of registration of the document under Section 75 of the Act of 1908. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It is true that the trial court has rejected the application of the plaintiff-petitioner merely on the ground that plaintiff himself stated that the document has been registered by the Sub-Registrar, but even if that itself may not be sufficient ground for rejection of the application of the plaintiff-petitioner even then it appears from the Registration Act, 1908 that there is no provision under which the civil court can direct the Sub-Registrar/Registrar before whom the document is required to be presented for registration to register the document when unregistered document is tendered in evidence by the party. The procedure for registration of the document is provided SBCWP No.243/2009 Hira Lal Vs. Harshad & Ors. 5 under the Act of 1908 wherein the specific provisions have been made for registration of the documents when the executant of the document fails to appear to admit the execution of the document. Under the Act of 1908 it is also provided that under what circumstances the Registrar/Sub Registrar can refuse to register the document. Under Chapter XII of the Act of 1908, specific provisions have been made for applying for order of registration of a document provided it has been refused by the Sub- Registrar, particularly when its execution has been denied by the executant. Chapter XII is also self-contained and that procedure is subjec to all procedure of appeal and further appeal etc and even for filing of the suit after final order refusing registration of document. In view of the above reasons, the plaintiff could have opted for the procedure provided under the Act of 1908 for getting the document registered if its execution has been denied and after appropriate order if the plaintiff remain aggrieved then he could have filed the suit under Section 77 of the Act of 1908. The suit which has been filed by the plaintiff for possession cannot be treated to be a suit under SBCWP No.243/2009 Hira Lal Vs. Harshad & Ors. 6 Section 77 of the Act of 1908 because there is no order of refusal to register the document by the competent authority under the Act of 1908. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the trial court by which the trial court refused to direct the Registrar/Sub-Registrar to register the documents on different grounds than the ground given by the trial court. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-