Madras High Court
J.Gandhi vs The Inspector General Of ... on 8 September, 2021
W.P.No.18952 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.09.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.18952 of 2021
(Through Video Conferencing)
J.Gandhi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome, Chennai.
2.The District Registrar (Administration),
District Registration Office, Chengalpattu.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Thirupporur, Chengalpattu District.
4.The Sub Registrar,
Thirukkazhukkundram,
Chengalpattu District. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct respondents to dispose the
representation of the petitioner dated 28.07.2021 by registering the pending
document, viz., P/Thiruporur/238/2020 in terms of the order passed in
W.P.(MD) No.13896 of 2019 by this Court.
_____________
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page No. 1 of 5
W.P.No.18952 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sivaprakash
For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, G.A.
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a Writ
of Mandamus, to direct respondents to dispose the representation of the
petitioner dated 28.07.2021 by registering the pending document, viz.,
P/Thiruporur/238/2020 in terms of the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.13896
of 2019 by this Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
3. Considering the pending document of the petitioner, i.e.
P/Thiruporur/238/2020, the second respondent is directed to consider the
representation dated 28.07.2021 and pass appropriate order in accordance
with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. While disposing the representation, the second respondent shall keep in
mind the observations of the Madurai Bench of this Court in the case of
K.Krishnan Vs. Inspector General of Registration and others, by its
_____________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.18952 of 2021
order dated 20.06.2019 in W.P.(MD) No.13896 of 2019, wherein, it has been
held as follows:-
14.Therefore, it has been made clear by the said
Division Bench judgment that, the limitation
prescribed under the Act i.e., under the proviso to
Section 23 of the Act cannot stand attracted, insofar
as the limitation is concerned for registration of
Court decree, since it is not compulsorily registrable
document. In other words, as any other document,
which are to be registered compulsorily under the
Registration Act, the Court decree and orders need
not be registered compulsorily. Therefore, it is only
optional, by exercising such option, if the parties
desire to register any decree or order of the Court,
the same can be treated only as an optional
registration, for which, the limitation prescribed
under Section 23 of the Act cannot be strictly
construed as a mandatory requirement. Therefore, it
can only be treated as directory and therefore, the
mandatory requirement of registration of document
within four months as contemplated under Section
23 of the Act cannot be put against any party, who
wants to register the Court decree or order.
4. Thus, this Writ Petition is disposed. No cost.
08.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
jen
_____________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.18952 of 2021
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome, Chennai.
2.The District Registrar (Administration),
District Registration Office, Chengalpattu.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Thirupporur, Chengalpattu District.
4.The Sub Registrar,
Thirukkazhukkundram,
Chengalpattu District.
_____________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.18952 of 2021
C.SARAVANAN, J.
jen
W.P.No.18952 of 2021
08.09.2021
_____________
http://www.judis.nic.in
