CWP-20423 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (107+259) Phoenix ARC Private Ltd. State of Haryana and others CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI CM-4866-CWP 1. 151 CPC, preferred by one Bal Kishan, for respondents, as respondent No.4, for ensuring a complete and effective resolution of the dispute 2. whom the proceedings under the Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’) 3. 4. 20423-2023 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Phoenix ARC Private Ltd. Versus Haryana and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Manish Jain, Advocate for the non-applicant/petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Amit Prashar, Advocate for the applicant/respondent No.4 **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral) CWP-2025 This is an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, preferred by one Bal Kishan, for respondents, as respondent No.4, for ensuring a complete and effective resolution of the dispute involved. The applicant claims himself to be one of the guarantor, against whom the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’), has been effected. Notice in the application. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Munish Jain, Advocate, who is 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20423-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision : 01.04.2025 …Petitioner Versus ...Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, DAG, Haryana. Advocate for respondent No.3. the applicant/respondent No.4-Bal Kishan/Guarantor. This is an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, preferred by one Bal Kishan, for his impleadment, in the array of respondents, as respondent No.4, for ensuring a complete and effective himself to be one of the guarantor, against Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 fected. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Munish Jain, Advocate, who is This is an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section impleadment, in the array of respondents, as respondent No.4, for ensuring a complete and effective himself to be one of the guarantor, against Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 On the asking of the Court, Mr. Munish Jain, Advocate, who is MANPREET SINGH 2025.04.07 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-20423 present in the Court, non-applicant/petitioner the instant application, and the same is ordered to be taken on record. 5. in the case file. 6. application, dispute, as the grievance of the petitioner is only against the respondent/State who despite the successful completion of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, is not registering the sale deed 7. he is a necessary party to the dispute, as the land which was auctioned sought to be is entitled for audienc 8. counsel for the applicant 9. non-applicant/petitioner, the applicant is a guarantor, whose land is to be transferred by way of sale deed, this Court deems it apt, that he is a necessary party to the instant therefore, the ordered to be impleaded in the array of respondents, as respondent No.4. 10. taken on the record. The Registry is directed to attach t place in the case file. 11. 20423-2023 (O&M) present in the Court, waives service and applicant/petitioner. He has also filed a the instant application, and the same is ordered to be taken on record. The Registry is directed to attach the in the case file. Learned counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner and made a submission that he is not a necessary party dispute, as the grievance of the petitioner is only against the respondent/State who despite the successful completion of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, is not registering the sale deed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that he is a necessary party to the dispute, as the land which was auctioned sought to be registered by a sale deed, is in fact, belong is entitled for audience, before adjudication of th This Court has considered the submissions made by the le counsel for the applicant as well as non-applicant/petitioner Considering the fact that no prejudice will be caused to the applicant/petitioner, in case, the instant application is allowed, and since the applicant is a guarantor, whose land is to be transferred by way of sale deed, this Court deems it apt, that he is a necessary party to the instant therefore, the instant application is allowed ordered to be impleaded in the array of respondents, as respondent No.4. The accompanying amended memo of parties, is taken on the record. The Registry is directed to attach t place in the case file. Application stands disposed of 2 waives service and accepts notice on behalf of the has also filed a short reply dated 24.03.2025, to the instant application, and the same is ordered to be taken on record. The Registry is directed to attach the same at an appropriate place applicant/petitioner, has opposed the and made a submission that he is not a necessary party to the dispute, as the grievance of the petitioner is only against the respondent/State who despite the successful completion of proceedings under the SARFAESI learned counsel for the applicant, submits that he is a necessary party to the dispute, as the land which was auctioned, and in fact, belongs to him, therefore, before adjudication of the instant matter. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned applicant/petitioner. Considering the fact that no prejudice will be caused to the in case, the instant application is allowed, and since the applicant is a guarantor, whose land is to be transferred by way of sale deed, this Court deems it apt, that he is a necessary party to the instant lis, and allowed. The applicant-Bal Kishan, ordered to be impleaded in the array of respondents, as respondent No.4. The accompanying amended memo of parties, is ordered to be taken on the record. The Registry is directed to attach the same at appropriate disposed of accordingly. accepts notice on behalf of the 3.2025, to appropriate place opposed the to the dispute, as the grievance of the petitioner is only against the respondent/State, who despite the successful completion of proceedings under the SARFAESI learned counsel for the applicant, submits that and is to him, therefore, he arned Considering the fact that no prejudice will be caused to the in case, the instant application is allowed, and since the applicant is a guarantor, whose land is to be transferred by way of sale , and Bal Kishan, is ordered to be he same at appropriate MANPREET SINGH 2025.04.07 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-20423 CM-4867-CWP 1. respondent No.4, is allowed, as prayed for, and the same is taken on record, subject to just exceptions. 2. CWP-20423 1. approached this Court, on account of lackadaisical and indolent approach of respondent No.2, who is neither registering the sale certificate with respect to Plot No.181, measuring 278.50 sq. yards, nor r speaking order. 2. availed certain credit facility from South Indian Bank (Assignor Bank) in November, 2011, however, it failed to honour its obligations repayment of loan instalment NPA way back on dated 30.09.2012. Thereupon, the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, SARFAESI Act, was issued on dated 15.11.2012. S forthcoming the assignor bank took the symbolic possession of the mortgaged property on dated 12.02.2013. Thereafter, the said loan was assigned to the present petitioner being the asset reconstruction company vide assignment deed dated 17.03.2017. The petitioner of the SARFAESI Act property in question 18.01.2023 and respondent no.3 was dec Rs.1,27,20,000/ 20423-2023 (O&M) CWP-2025 Application for placing on record reply on behalf of the respondent No.4, is allowed, as prayed for, and the same is taken on record, ject to just exceptions. Application stands disposed of 20423-2023 The petitioner, an Asset Reconstruction Company, has approached this Court, on account of lackadaisical and indolent approach of respondent No.2, who is neither registering the sale certificate with respect to Plot No.181, measuring 278.50 sq. yards, nor r speaking order. Succinctly, one M/s Keralait Fashion Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. had availed certain credit facility from South Indian Bank (Assignor Bank) in November, 2011, however, it failed to honour its obligations ment of loan instalment. Consequently, the NPA way back on dated 30.09.2012. Thereupon, the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, were initiated as notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, was issued on dated 15.11.2012. S forthcoming the assignor bank took the symbolic possession of the mortgaged property on dated 12.02.2013. Thereafter, the said loan was assigned to the present petitioner being the asset reconstruction company vide assignment 17.03.2017. The petitioner-Bank in accordance with the provision of the SARFAESI Act, issued public notice through online E in question on dated 30.12.2022, and the E 18.01.2023 and respondent no.3 was declared as highest bidder with a bid of Rs.1,27,20,000/-. A letter dated 18.01.2023, was issued to respondent no.3, 3 Application for placing on record reply on behalf of the respondent No.4, is allowed, as prayed for, and the same is taken on record, disposed of accordingly. The petitioner, an Asset Reconstruction Company, has approached this Court, on account of lackadaisical and indolent approach of respondent No.2, who is neither registering the sale certificate with respect to Plot No.181, measuring 278.50 sq. yards, nor refusing by passing any Succinctly, one M/s Keralait Fashion Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. had availed certain credit facility from South Indian Bank (Assignor Bank) in November, 2011, however, it failed to honour its obligations regarding . Consequently, the loan account was declared as NPA way back on dated 30.09.2012. Thereupon, the proceedings under the were initiated as notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, was issued on dated 15.11.2012. Since no payment was forthcoming the assignor bank took the symbolic possession of the mortgaged property on dated 12.02.2013. Thereafter, the said loan was assigned to the present petitioner being the asset reconstruction company vide assignment Bank in accordance with the provision issued public notice through online E-auction of the on dated 30.12.2022, and the E-auction was scheduled for lared as highest bidder with a bid of . A letter dated 18.01.2023, was issued to respondent no.3, Application for placing on record reply on behalf of the respondent No.4, is allowed, as prayed for, and the same is taken on record, The petitioner, an Asset Reconstruction Company, has approached this Court, on account of lackadaisical and indolent approach of respondent No.2, who is neither registering the sale certificate with respect to efusing by passing any Succinctly, one M/s Keralait Fashion Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. had availed certain credit facility from South Indian Bank (Assignor Bank) in regarding was declared as NPA way back on dated 30.09.2012. Thereupon, the proceedings under the were initiated as notice under Section 13(2) of the ince no payment was forthcoming the assignor bank took the symbolic possession of the mortgaged property on dated 12.02.2013. Thereafter, the said loan was assigned to the present petitioner being the asset reconstruction company vide assignment Bank in accordance with the provision auction of the auction was scheduled for lared as highest bidder with a bid of . A letter dated 18.01.2023, was issued to respondent no.3, MANPREET SINGH 2025.04.07 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-20423 thereby informing him that his bid was accepted and further requested him to deposit 25% of the sale price by 19.01.2023. Respondent no.3 was deposit balance 75% within 15 days. On dated 18.03.2023, the entire balance payment was made by respondent no.3, to the petitioner, and pursuant thereto, sale certificate dated 20.03.2023 was issued by the petitioner under Rule 9(6) of the Secu no.3. The sale, which took place on 18.01.2023 has become final and respondent no.3 has now become absolute owner of the said property. 3. no.3 the date for registration was fixed on 28.03.2023, however, the Sub Registrar refused to was assigned for such refusal. 4. provision of Section 71 of the Registration Act, the Sub Registrar is duty bound to either, register the document, or decline and refuse to register the documents by recording his reasons for such order in his Book No.2, and thereupon, supply a copy of this Court towards Section 35 that the Act specifically provides the reasons for which a refusal upon which Sub Registrar can deny registration of docume provisions of Sections 71 and 35 are reproduced herein under: 20423-2023 (O&M) thereby informing him that his bid was accepted and further requested him to deposit 25% of the sale price by 19.01.2023. Respondent no.3 was deposit balance 75% within 15 days. On dated 18.03.2023, the entire balance payment was made by respondent no.3, to the petitioner, and pursuant thereto, sale certificate dated 20.03.2023 was issued by the petitioner under Rule 9(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in favour of respondent no.3. The sale, which took place on 18.01.2023 has become final and respondent no.3 has now become absolute owner of the said property. In view of the consensus between the petitioner and no.3 the date for registration was fixed on 28.03.2023, however, the Sub Registrar refused to accept the sale deed for registration was assigned for such refusal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view provision of Section 71 of the Registration Act, the Sub Registrar is duty bound to either, register the document, or decline and refuse to register the documents by recording his reasons for such order in his Book No.2, and thereupon, supply a copy of the refusal order. Counsel also drawn the attention of this Court towards Section 35 (3) of the Registration Act, 1908 to submit that the Act specifically provides the reasons for which a refusal upon which Sub Registrar can deny registration of docume provisions of Sections 71 and 35 are reproduced herein under: “35. Procedure on admission and denial of execution respectively. (1) (a) If all the persons executing the document appear personally before the registering of known to him, or if he be otherwise satisfied that they are the persons they represent themselves to be, and if they all admit the execution of the document, or 4 thereby informing him that his bid was accepted and further requested him to deposit 25% of the sale price by 19.01.2023. Respondent no.3 was required to deposit balance 75% within 15 days. On dated 18.03.2023, the entire balance payment was made by respondent no.3, to the petitioner, and pursuant thereto, sale certificate dated 20.03.2023 was issued by the petitioner under Rule 9(6) rity Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in favour of respondent no.3. The sale, which took place on 18.01.2023 has become final and respondent no.3 has now become absolute owner of the said property. In view of the consensus between the petitioner and respondent no.3 the date for registration was fixed on 28.03.2023, however, the Sub for registration and no valid reason Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the provision of Section 71 of the Registration Act, the Sub Registrar is duty bound to either, register the document, or decline and refuse to register the documents by recording his reasons for such order in his Book No.2, and of the refusal order. Counsel also drawn the attention (3) of the Registration Act, 1908 to submit that the Act specifically provides the reasons for which a refusal upon which Sub Registrar can deny registration of documents. For the relevant extract the provisions of Sections 71 and 35 are reproduced herein under:- 35. Procedure on admission and denial of execution (a) If all the persons executing the document appear personally before the registering officer and are personally known to him, or if he be otherwise satisfied that they are the persons they represent themselves to be, and if they all admit the execution of the document, or thereby informing him that his bid was accepted and further requested him to required to deposit balance 75% within 15 days. On dated 18.03.2023, the entire balance payment was made by respondent no.3, to the petitioner, and pursuant thereto, sale certificate dated 20.03.2023 was issued by the petitioner under Rule 9(6) rity Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in favour of respondent no.3. The sale, which took place on 18.01.2023 has become final and respondent no.3 the date for registration was fixed on 28.03.2023, however, the Sub and no valid reason of the provision of Section 71 of the Registration Act, the Sub Registrar is duty bound to either, register the document, or decline and refuse to register the documents by recording his reasons for such order in his Book No.2, and of the refusal order. Counsel also drawn the attention (3) of the Registration Act, 1908 to submit that the Act specifically provides the reasons for which a refusal upon which nts. For the relevant extract the 35. Procedure on admission and denial of execution (a) If all the persons executing the document appear ficer and are personally known to him, or if he be otherwise satisfied that they are the persons they represent themselves to be, and if they all MANPREET SINGH 2025.04.07 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-20423 20423-2023 (O&M) (b) if in the case of any person appearing by a representative, assign or agent, such representative, assign or agent admits the execution, or (c) if the person executing the document is dead, and his representative or assign appears before the registering officer and admits the execution, the registering officer shall register the document as directed in sections 58 to 61, inclusive. (2) The registering officer may, in order to satisfy himself that the persons appearing before him are the persons they represent themselves to be, or for any other contemplated by this Act, examine any one present in purpose his office. (3)(a) If any person by whom the document purports to be executed denies its execution, or (b) if any such person appears to the registering officer to be a minor, an idiot or a lunatic, or (c) if any person by whom the document purports to be executed is dead, and his representative or assign denies its execution, the registering officer shall refuse to register the document as to the person so denying, appearing or dead: Provided that, where such officer follow the procedure prescribed in Part XII: 71. 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 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, sh payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded. (2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a 5 (b) if in the case of any person appearing by a or agent, such representative, assign or agent admits the execution, or (c) if the person executing the document is dead, and his representative or assign appears before the registering officer and admits the execution, the registering officer ter the document as directed in sections 58 to (2) The registering officer may, in order to satisfy himself that the persons appearing before him are the persons they represent themselves to be, or for any other purpose Act, examine any one present in (3)(a) If any person by whom the document purports to be executed denies its execution, or (b) if any such person appears to the registering officer to be a minor, an idiot or a lunatic, or son by whom the document purports to be executed is dead, and his representative or assign denies its execution, the registering officer shall refuse to register the document as to the person so denying, appearing or Provided that, where such officer is a Registrar, he shall follow the procedure prescribed in Part XII: 71. Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded. Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is 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 on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the (2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a (b) if in the case of any person appearing by a or agent, such representative, assign (c) if the person executing the document is dead, and his representative or assign appears before the registering officer and admits the execution, the registering officer ter the document as directed in sections 58 to (2) The registering officer may, in order to satisfy himself that the persons appearing before him are the persons they rpose Act, examine any one present in (3)(a) If any person by whom the document purports to be (b) if any such person appears to the registering officer to son by whom the document purports to be executed is dead, and his representative or assign denies its execution, the registering officer shall refuse to register the document as to the person so denying, appearing or is a Registrar, he shall Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is 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 on application made by any person all, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the (2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a MANPREET SINGH 2025.04.07 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-20423 5. that despite making payment to the petitioner, he was unable to get his sale deed registered. He also submits that there is no legal impediment upon which the Sub Registr 6. added respondent no.4. He submits that he has not availed any loan facility from the bank rather he stood only guarantor and the petitioner instead of taking actio proceedings against him. Counsel further submits that the petitioner ought to have made all attempts to satisfy the original borrower instead of touching th to it the petitioner financial institution by ch get his sale deed registered. Therefore, the Sub Registrar has rightly refused to entertain the sale deed and for that he has also file complaint which is pending before the learned Illaqa Magistrate. 7. counsel for the parties concerned and have gone through the entire case file. 8. are highly misplaced. Respondent no.4, has already approached the learned D.R.T.-II, Chandigarh by filing SA/90/2023 in IA Case No/603/2023 titled as Shri Bhudutt Sharma son of Late Shri Khillu Ram Sharma Vs. Phoe Private Limited, to challenge the action of the petitioner wherethrough the property belongs to him, has been put to auction, however, he remained unsuccessful as the same was dismissed vide order dated 20423-2023 (O&M) document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the documen to be registered. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that despite making payment to the petitioner, he was unable to get his sale deed registered. He also submits that there is no legal impediment upon which the Sub Registrar to register the documents. The above submissions were vociferously opposed by newly added respondent no.4. He submits that he has not availed any loan facility from the bank rather he stood only guarantor and the petitioner instead of taking action against the original borrower, have initiated recovery proceedings against him. Counsel further submits that the petitioner ought to have made all attempts to satisfy their loan amount by taking action against the original borrower instead of touching the property of guarantor. In addition to it the petitioner financial institution by ch get his sale deed registered. Therefore, the Sub Registrar has rightly refused to entertain the sale deed and for that he has also file complaint which is pending before the learned Illaqa Magistrate. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties concerned and have gone through the entire case file. So far the objections of respondent no.4 are concerned, the same are highly misplaced. Respondent no.4, has already approached the learned II, Chandigarh by filing SA/90/2023 in IA Case No/603/2023 titled as Shri Bhudutt Sharma son of Late Shri Khillu Ram Sharma Vs. Phoe Private Limited, to challenge the action of the petitioner wherethrough the property belongs to him, has been put to auction, however, he remained unsuccessful as the same was dismissed vide order dated 6 document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed earned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that despite making payment to the petitioner, he was unable to get his sale deed registered. He also submits that there is no legal impediment upon which ar to register the documents. The above submissions were vociferously opposed by newly added respondent no.4. He submits that he has not availed any loan facility from the bank rather he stood only guarantor and the petitioner instead of n against the original borrower, have initiated recovery proceedings against him. Counsel further submits that the petitioner ought to heir loan amount by taking action against e property of guarantor. In addition to it the petitioner financial institution by changing the property ID is trying to get his sale deed registered. Therefore, the Sub Registrar has rightly refused to entertain the sale deed and for that he has also filed a private criminal complaint which is pending before the learned Illaqa Magistrate. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties concerned and have gone through the entire case file. of respondent no.4 are concerned, the same are highly misplaced. Respondent no.4, has already approached the learned II, Chandigarh by filing SA/90/2023 in IA Case No/603/2023 titled as Shri Bhudutt Sharma son of Late Shri Khillu Ram Sharma Vs. Phoenix ARC Private Limited, to challenge the action of the petitioner-financial institution, wherethrough the property belongs to him, has been put to auction, however, he remained unsuccessful as the same was dismissed vide order dated document so endorsed unless and until, under the t is directed earned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that despite making payment to the petitioner, he was unable to get his sale deed registered. He also submits that there is no legal impediment upon which The above submissions were vociferously opposed by newly added respondent no.4. He submits that he has not availed any loan facility from the bank rather he stood only guarantor and the petitioner instead of n against the original borrower, have initiated recovery proceedings against him. Counsel further submits that the petitioner ought to heir loan amount by taking action against e property of guarantor. In addition ing the property ID is trying to get his sale deed registered. Therefore, the Sub Registrar has rightly refused to d a private criminal This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties concerned and have gone through the entire case file. of respondent no.4 are concerned, the same are highly misplaced. Respondent no.4, has already approached the learned II, Chandigarh by filing SA/90/2023 in IA Case No/603/2023 titled as nix ARC financial institution, wherethrough the property belongs to him, has been put to auction, however, he remained unsuccessful as the same was dismissed vide order dated MANPREET SINGH 2025.04.07 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-20423 02.05.2023, and it is finality. 9. plausible and reasonable objection on the part of respondent no.4, for restraining the petitioner to seek a Mandamus upon taking final decision on the sale deed submitted before him. Therefore, at this stage, this Court deems it apt to pass a Mandamus upon the Sub Registrar concerned, that in case the petitioner submits its sale deed within a period of 15 days from today for its registration, the latter shall after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, will take apt decision in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908, and in case the Sub Registrar comes to the conclusion that the a speaking order. The above exercise shall be carried out within three weeks from the date of submission of the documents by the petitioner. 10. April 01, 202 lucky/Manpreet 20423-2023 (O&M) 02.05.2023, and it is not under dispute that the order (supra) has attained In view of the above specific facts, this Court does not find any plausible and reasonable objection on the part of respondent no.4, for restraining the petitioner to seek a Mandamus upon taking final decision on the sale deed submitted before him. Therefore, at this stage, this Court deems it apt to pass a Mandamus upon the Sub Registrar concerned, that in case the petitioner submits its sale deed within a period of 15 days from today for its registration, the latter shall after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, will take apt decision in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908, and in case the Sub Registrar comes to the conclusion that the document cannot be registered, he shall pass a speaking order. The above exercise shall be carried out within three weeks from the date of submission of the documents by the petitioner. Petition is disposed of accordingly. , 2025 Manpreet Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 7 not under dispute that the order (supra) has attained In view of the above specific facts, this Court does not find any plausible and reasonable objection on the part of respondent no.4, for restraining the petitioner to seek a Mandamus upon the Sub Registrar for taking final decision on the sale deed submitted before him. Therefore, at this stage, this Court deems it apt to pass a Mandamus upon the Sub Registrar concerned, that in case the petitioner submits its sale deed within a period of 15 days from today for its registration, the latter shall after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, will take apt decision in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908, and in case the Sub Registrar document cannot be registered, he shall pass a speaking order. The above exercise shall be carried out within three weeks from the date of submission of the documents by the petitioner. accordingly. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No not under dispute that the order (supra) has attained In view of the above specific facts, this Court does not find any plausible and reasonable objection on the part of respondent no.4, for the Sub Registrar for taking final decision on the sale deed submitted before him. Therefore, at this stage, this Court deems it apt to pass a Mandamus upon the Sub Registrar concerned, that in case the petitioner submits its sale deed within a period of 15 days from today for its registration, the latter shall after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, will take apt decision in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908, and in case the Sub Registrar document cannot be registered, he shall pass a speaking order. The above exercise shall be carried out within three weeks MANPREET SINGH 2025.04.07 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment