THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.18975 OF 2009 Dated: 11.11.2009 Between: R. Srinivasa Reddy and another Petitioners And The Inspector General of Registrations and Stamps Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.18975 OF 2009 ORDER: 1 Petitioners claim to have purchased plot bearing No.473-S-III situated at Road No.86, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad belonging to one V. Suresh Reddy, hereinafter referred to as ‘vendor’, under an agreement of sale dated 16.06.2008 for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,26,50,000/- and an amount of Rs.33 lakhs was paid immediately towards advance. Thereafter the Petitioners gave two cheques one for Rs.90,000/- and another for Rs.80,000/- totaling to Rs.1,70,000/- on 03.06.2009 in the name of their vendor and in the name of one Satish Reddi towards the loan amount of their vendor. Subsequently on 28.06.2009, in view of the understanding arrived at between the parties, the Petitioners gave a cheque for Rs.86,31,000/- and paid the balance amount of Rs.5,49,000/- by way of cash to their vendor and accordingly their vendor executed a sale deed on 29.06.2009 to be presented before the second Respondent and an amount of Rs.12 lakhs was also paid by way of challan towards stamp duty etc on 06.07.2009. However, instead of receiving and registering the said document, the second respondent addressed a letter bearing No.410/2009 dated 29.08.2009 stating that in respect of the very same property two suits i.e. O.S.No.403 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and O.S.No.928 of 2009 on the file of the Court of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad are filed against their vendor and are pending and in view of the orders of attachment passed by those two courts he is not registering the said document. On verification, the petitioners came to know that the suits are filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.23,47,500/- and Rs.6,95,000/- respectively against their vendor and in I.A.Nos.1647 of 2009 and 459 of 2009 the courts below were pleased to pass orders dated 06.07.2009 attaching the property in question before judgment and in that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to receive the document and also register the same as provided for under the Indian Registration Act. 2 Respondents 3 and 4 got themselves impleaded in this Writ Petition and according to them, as the original vendor of the petitioners i.e. one Mr. Suresh Reddy owes an amount of Rs. 23,47,500/- and Rs.6 Lakhs to them and as such they instituted the said suits and obtained orders of attachment before judgment. It is further stated that the said factual aspect was brought to the notice of the second respondent and eventually he refused to get the document submitted by the petitioners registered. 3 The learned Assistant Government Pleader filed a detailed counter stating that the Government issued two G.Os. i.e. G.O.Ms.No.620 on 28.09.2002 and G.O.Ms.No.497 on 07.04.2003 and as per the said G.Os as and when there are orders from any court, the registering authorities shall not register any document even if presented. 4 The main contention of Mr.C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that this court was pleased to pass an interim order on 09.09.2009 directing the second respondent to receive the said document. The said direction is not for the mere purpose of receiving the document alone and it is for the purpose of registering the document also. According to him, may be the word ‘register’ is not there in the said order dated 09.09.2009, but it does not mean that the second respondent can simply receive the said document and keep it on his table. According to him when once a document is received by the registering authority, the authority has to pass an order either accepting it or rejecting it so that the aggrieved party can exercise his option of approaching the appellate authority and file an appeal. In the case on hand, at the first instance, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the second respondent refused to receive the document and even after the orders passed by this court he simply received it without passing any orders, which is contrary to Section 71 of the Registration Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the judgments of this court in Thummalachetty Builders and Developers (PVT) Limited Vs. Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps and Registration and others[1] and P.P. Raj and another Vs. Sri Rama Finance Corporation and others[2]. 5 Reiterating the stand taken in the counter affidavit, the learned Assistant Government Pleader placed reliance on the two G.Os i.e. G.O.Ms.No.620 dated 28.09.2002 and G.O.Ms.No.497 dated 07.04.2003 and contended that if the attachment orders passed by the courts below are vacated either on payment of the amount or otherwise, the second Respondent will admit the document for registration as there will not be any legal impediment. 6 Mr. Badri Premnath, learned counsel for the Respondents 3 and 4 submitted that the Petitioners have already approached the civil court and filed claim petitions and they also agreed to offer bank guarantee equivalent to the value of the suit for the vacation of the said attachment orders. 7 In my considered view, this Writ Petition is not maintainable for two reasons. Firstly, the Petitioners are having an alternative efficacious remedy i.e. by approaching the civil court and file a claim petition under Order 38 Rule 8 CPC seeking vacation of the said interim order dated 06.07.2009 i.e. order of attachment before judgment; secondly, inasmuch the Sub Registrar has not passed any order refusing to receive the said document so far, they may ask the Sub Registrar to pass an order either way on the document submitted by them for registration since it is incumbent upon the registering authority to pass an order as provided for under Section 71 of the Registration Act, which reads as under: Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded: (1) Every Sub Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No.2, and endorse the words “registration refused” on the document; and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so refused. (2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered.” If for any reason the authority refuses to register the document, the aggrieved party has a right of appeal as provided for under section 72 of the said Act and thereafter only the petitioners can approach this court by filing petition of this nature. Section 72 of the Registration Act reads: “Appeal to Registrar from orders of Sub-Registrar refusing registration on grounds other that denial of execution: (1) Except where the refusal is made on the ground of denial of execution, an appeal shall lie against an order of Sub Registrar refusing to admit a document to registration (whether the registration of such document is compulsory or optional) to the Registrar to whom such Sub- Registrar is subordinate, if presented to such Registrar within thirty days from the date of the order; and the Registrar may reverse or alter such order. 8 So far as the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Thummalachetty Builders and Developers case (1 supra) is concerned, the facts in the said case are different from that of the case on hand. There the Writ Petitioners were not parties to the suit, whereas in the case on hand though the Petitioners are not parties to the suits, their vendor Suresh Reddy is the defendant against whom the said suits were instituted. When once the vendor of the Petitioners is a party to the suit, in my considered view, the two G.Os i.e. G.O.Ms.No.620 dated 28.09.2002 and G.O.Ms.No.497 dated 07.04.2003 would come into picture and so the Second Respondent shall act according to the instructions and guidelines issued in the said G.Os. 9 In that view of the matter, I see no merits in this Writ Petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. ------------------ 11.11.2009 Kvsn [1] 2008 (6) ALT 227 [2] 1999 (6) ALD 690