/ SI^IP R^w In the Honble Hieh Court of CfaliattisearhatBilasBur fC.G.) !. W.P.CC^No.'... ..:J.^^^^.... ..2009 Petitioner Respondents 1. 2. Vivek Agrawal aged 48 years Soa of Sfaii L.N;Agrawal, Resideat ofBaniya Para, Durg (CG) Versus State Cjetvernaient of Clihattishgarh, Through- The Secretary Registration Deptt. D.KS.Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) InspeetbrGeneralofStamps, t^^~"^ Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 3. CQI^ Durg. 4., Sub Regisfrar, \^^ MukhyalayaUp-Panjiyak,Durg(C.G.) Writ netition under Article 22& of the Constitution of India for issuance ofMaiuIamus/diFectnMloratlfer aBDroDriatereUef '—-~~ I-HC-22 an^iqif h'u't ssv^s '3FRNi"?tit?T -^g "i|l<<ld'!1, »Tll'y'is. fayiyy 3'n^?T TRTg; IWfl Chliqi lt-!l°10 ioo ^l^SS' sii^i TOIIW ^rftg SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. 27.01.2011 Shri Somkant Verma, Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Shri SIK. Mishra, Panel Lawye cotinsel for the petitioner. E)y. Advocate General along wifh ;j- for the State/respondents. Heard. This petition has been order dated 15th January, 2(p09 Durg, by which the petitione) been rejected on certain grounjds ^iled by the petitioner aggrieved by passed by the Sub-Registrar, •'s appUcation for registration has Leamed coiinsel for the submitted that against the o\ there exists efEcacious and altl as provided under Section (hereinafter referred to as the\ Leamed counsel for the permitted to withdraw the pe| before the constituted appella| ActoflQOS. Learned counsel for the f .the prayer. +illcl'fl-f ^WvS 4^S <Fil<^K ^siPtpTan^r IS. respondents/State, at the outset, ("der passed by the Sub-Registrar, :mative statutory remedy of appeal 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 }Actofl908"}. [petitioner submits that he may be [ition with liberty to file an appeal a|te authority as provided under the .tate/respondents do.es not oppose iTti'i-W?"' ai!»». ^•^ ^' B XI-HC-22 ^ ^;" T T53 •^WId'1!, »fli*f<i(o. facll'My sn^T^n h-i'M SD^T ^•4 flf^T Praveen 3TI^?T IRT^ 11*<Ptl ^tiiq,------"---—--'^200 {q^ET' Accordingly, in view of counsel for the pardes, this pj with liberty to the petitioneil CM*i[ci4lT) ^tTH^iT'? f^%i <Rtf^i< ^; aipgii sn^I appeal as provided under the |the submissions made by leamed ^tition is perinitted to be withdrawn to avail the statutory reraedy e£; Kct of1908. Considering that this pe|tition petitioner prefers an appeal shall be decided by the appelljate question of limitation, on its law. was filed on 18.3.2009, if the ^thin a period of 30 days, the same authority without going into fhe bwn merits and in accordance with Sd-/ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ['qR; 3f''T3