IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 656 of 2024 --- Gopal Sharan Bharatia son of Shadhu Sharan, resident of Lohanipuar, Das Lane, P.O. & P.S.- Kadamkuan, District- Patna (Bihar) … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rahul Kumar, Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi 3. Vaibhav Mani Tripathi, District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi …. … Opp. Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Mishra, A.C. to G.P.-IV Order No. 17 Dated: 21.02.2025 The present contempt petition has been filed for initiation of contempt proceeding as against the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 alleging willful violation of order dated 20.10.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3906 of 2022. 2. Pursuant to order dated 31.01.2025, Mr. Vaibhav Mani Tripathi, District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi (the opposite party no. 3) is physically present before this Court. 3. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Mishra, learned A.C. to G.P.-IV appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, refers to paragraph nos. 7 and 8 of the supplementary show cause affidavit dated 18.02.2025 filed on behalf of the opposite party no.3, which read as under: “7. That it is humbly stated and submitted that in pursuance and in compliance of the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court, memo no. 209 dated 07.02.2025 has been issued under the signature of the respondent no. 5 (the opposite party no. 3 herein) wherein the said respondent is not inclined to register the sale deeds presented by the petitioner, stating the specific grounds for denial of registration. A copy of order as contained in memo no. 209 dated 07.02.2025 has been annexed as Annexure-A to the said supplementary show cause affidavit. 2 2 Cont. Case (Civil) No.656 of 2024 8. That It is humbly stated and submitted that upon careful perusal of the sale deeds presented for registration, following reasons have been assigned due to which the said sale deeds cannot be registered: (a) Receipt against payment of Registration Fee has not been furnished by the petitioner. (b) Receipt against payment of Stamp Duty has not been furnished by the petitioner. (c) Original copies of the deeds to be registered have not been furnished by the petitioner. 4. It is thus submitted that the opposite party no. 3 has now complied the aforesaid order of this Court. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no. 3 has illegally refused to register the sale deeds presented by the petitioner. 6. Be that as it may. Since the opposite party no. 3 has passed an order as contained in memo no. 209 dated 07.02.2025 refusing to register the sale deeds presented by the petitioner, there is no need to further proceed in the present matter. 7. The contempt proceeding as against the opposite parties including the opposite party no. 3 is hereby dropped. 8. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse as permissible under law against the order as contained in memo no. 209 dated 07.02.2025 issued by the opposite party no. 3. 9. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh/