ORDER
V. Gopala Gowda, J.
1. Though the matter is listed in the preliminary hearing, having regard to the nature of relief prayed for in this petition, by the consent of the learned Counsels for the parties, petitioner is heard on merits and the petition is being disposed of by this order.
2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned endorsement at Annexure-C, dated 18-3-2002 issued by the 7th respondent in refusing to register the document presented by them after obtaining the decree from the competent Civil Court in the Original Suit No. 246 of 1993 as the Registering Authority has refused to register the document presented by them as the cause of action arose for them under Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908 (in short ‘the Act’).
3. After hearing the learned Counsels for the parties, the Trial Court has determined the rights of the parties and answered the contentious issues in favour of the petitioner and passed judgment and decree dated 7-3-2002 permitting the petitioner to present the document before the 7th and 8th respondents for registration of the same in accordance with law. The petitioners presented the document for registration after obtaining the decree referred to supra before 7th respondent after lapse of one year. The document should have been presented for registration within 30 days from the date of passing of the decree by the competent Civil Court. That has not been done in the instant case for the reasons stated at paragraph 4 of this petition. Therefore, impugned endorsement is issued by the 7th respondent. The correctness of the said endorsement is questioned in this writ petition placing reliance upon the judgment of Patna High Court in Keshwar Mehra v Rajeswari Pershad Singh and Officers , AIR 1935. Pat. 497
in support of the proposition that the delay in presentation of the document for its registration was due mainly to the mistaken notion of the Court that could not ask the document to be returned to him to be presented for registration before the expiry of thirty days as prescribed under Section 77 of the Act and hence should not be deprived of the benefit of the decree passed in his favour in consequence of the mistaken view.
4. The learned Government Pleader sought to justify the impugned endorsement contending that the prescription of 30 days time for presentation of document before the Registering Authority is mandatory, there is no error in law in the impugned order issued by the 7th respondent and therefore she has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel and perused the endorsement and also the explanation offered by the petitioner at para 4 of the petition for not having presented the document within 30 days from the date of passing of the decree which reads thus:
“It is submitted the petitioners are illiterate and innocent agriculturists, petitioner 1 is asthma patient and suffering from hepatitis and others, she required regular treatment and also not well-versed with legal matter, applied for certified copy of the judgment on 8-3-2001 and the same was made available on 2-4-2001, in the meanwhile 1st petitioner fell ill, she was under regular treatment, by a local Doctor, who advised complete rest. A copy of the Medical Certificate was produced and marked as Annexure-B. After little regain and collecting the case papers and decree copy,
sale deed has been presented for registration on 18-3-2002 before the respondent 7, he refused to receive the deed for registration on the ground, documents have to be presented within 30 days from the date of decree, hence same is barred by time and issued an endorsement to the effect on 18-3-2002 itself, the copy of the same is herewith produced and marked as Annexure-C accompany this writ petition, no opportunity offered to the petitioners before issuing of impugned endorsement”.
6. Further, in view of law laid down by the Patna High Court in the aforesaid case and by careful reading of Section 77 of the Act, it is clear that, prescription of 30 days time in the above provision for presenting the document for its registration after obtaining the decree before the Civil Court is a procedural aspect which has to be viewed leniently to see that justice shall not suffer. The Apex Court in the case of Shreenath and Anr. v Rajesh and Ors.,
at paragraph 3 after interpreting Order 21, Rules 97(1) and (2), 101, 99, 100 and 103 as they stood prior to the 1976 Amendment and also Rules 35 and 36 of the Rules, has succinctly laid down the law which reads thus:
“In interpreting any procedural law, where more than one interpretation is possible, the one which curtails the procedure without eluding justice is to be adopted. The procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid of justice. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed”.
7. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the presentation of document within 30 days time under Section 77 of the Act is procedural aspect which is required to be viewed very leniently to see that justice is done to the parties. For the aforesaid reason, issuance of impugned endorsement by the 7th respondent is bad in law. Though the reason assigned in the endorsement that the document could not be presented within 30 days is correct, 7th respondent should have considered the reasons for non-presentation of documents by the petitioners for registration of the same as directed in the decree obtained by the petitioners keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court and Patna High Court in the cases referred to supra. Therefore, the petitioners must succeed.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned endorsement dated 18-3-2002 vide Annexure-C is hereby quashed. Issue rule. Petitioners are permitted to present the document for registration within two weeks from today and respondents 7 and 8 are hereby directed that they shall register the same by following the procedure provided under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the relevant Registration Rules applicable to the case within six weeks thereafter.