# Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Sultanpur v. District Judge Lucknow & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 2239
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-01
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 1000528 of 2010
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-sultanpur-v-district-judge-lucknow-anr-52058
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - execution of arbitration awardorder substituting petitioner in place of
original
judgement
debtor-under
challenge-petitioner was not a party to
the arbitration proceedings-impleading
application decided by treating it to be an
application for substitution-application
filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPCOrder XXI of CPC- self-contained code for
execution proceedings-no provision that
empowers the court to order impleadment
of
any
new
party
in
execution
proceedings-
substitution
proceedings
under Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC-not of
any avail-transfer made long after passing
of the arbitration award-on application for
attachment of properties of judgement
debtor filed under Order XXI CPC-no bar in
property being sold by Debt Recovery
Tribunal-petitioner
is
an
auction
purchaser-not
liable
to
satisfy
the
arbitration award passed against the
judgement
debtor-it
can
neither
be
impleaded nor be substituted in execution
proceedings-
impugned
order
unsustainable in law- petition allowed.
(Paras 21, 25, 26 & 27)

HELD:
The application for impleadment filed by the
opposite party no.2 did not make a mention of
the provision under which it was filed. Learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 has
submitted that the application had been filed
under the provisions contained in under Order I
Rule 10 (2) of the CPC. Order 1 of the CPC deals
with "Parties to Suits". The application for
impleadment was filed in execution proceedings
and not in a suit. The execution proceedings
have also not been filed for execution of any
decree passed in a suit, rather it was for
execution
of
an
arbitration
award.
The
procedure
governing
the
executions
proceedings is contained in Order XXI of CPC
which in itself is a self-contained code. There is
no provision in Order XXI of the CPC which
empowers the court to order impleadment of
any new party in execution proceedings, which
party was not there in the arbitration
proceedings in which the arbitration award was
passed. (Para 21)

The provision for substitution of parties in the
proceedings of suit are contained in Order XXII
C.P.C. Rule 10 whereof provides for substitution
of the transferee in case of assignment, creation
or devolution of any interest during pendency of
the suit but in the present case, the transfer was
not made during pendency of the arbitration
proceedings and it was made long after passing
of the arbitration award. (Para 25)

The opposite party no. 2 filed the application for
execution
of
the
arbitration
award
on
25.07.2006, but it did not file any application for
attachment of the properties of the judgment
debtor M/s Malvika Steels Ltd. under the
provisions of Order XXI C.P.C. Therefore, there
2240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was no bar against the properties of Malvika
Steels Ltd. being sold by the Debt Recovery
Tribunal by holding an auction. The petitioner
has purchased the properties in an auction held
by the Debt Recovery Tribunal without any
encumbrance on 'AS IS WHERE IS' basis.
Therefore, the petitioner got absolute rights in
the property of Malvika Steels Ltd. purchased in
an auction held by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
(Para 26)

In these circumstances the petitioner cannot be
held liable to satisfy the arbitration award that
was passed against the Malvika Steels Ltd. and
it can neither be impleaded nor be substituted in
the execution proceedings. (Para 27)

Petition allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

Southern Power Distribution Co. of Telangana
Ltd. Vs Gopal Agarwal: (2018) 12 SCC 644

## Text

5 All. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Sultanpur Vs. District Judge Lucknow & Anr.
2239
Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya in revision no.
341/2024
(computerized
no.
C202404000000341 is hereby quashed and
the case is remanded to the Revisional
Court to consider the matter afresh in the
light of the observations made in the
judgment.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2239
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ - C No. 1000528 of 2010

Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Sultanpur
 ...Petitioner
Versus
District Judge Lucknow & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shraddha
Agarwal,
Anshuman
Singh,
Radhika Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Amita Srivastava, Anil Srivastava,
Ashwani Kumar Singh, Asit K. Chaturvedi,
Brijesh Kumar Shukla, Manik Sinha, Pratul
Kr. Srivastava, Pratyush Chaube

Civil Law - execution of arbitration awardorder substituting petitioner in place of
original
judgement
debtor-under
challenge-petitioner was not a party to
the arbitration proceedings-impleading
application decided by treating it to be an
application for substitution-application
filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPCOrder XXI of CPC- self-contained code for
execution proceedings-no provision that
empowers the court to order impleadment
of
any
new
party
in
execution
proceedings-
substitution
proceedings
under Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC-not of
any avail-transfer made long after passing
of the arbitration award-on application for
attachment of properties of judgement
debtor filed under Order XXI CPC-no bar in
property being sold by Debt Recovery
Tribunal-petitioner
is
an
auction
purchaser-not
liable
to
satisfy
the
arbitration award passed against the
judgement
debtor-it
can
neither
be
impleaded nor be substituted in execution
proceedings-
impugned
order
unsustainable in law- petition allowed.
(Paras 21, 25, 26 & 27)

HELD:
The application for impleadment filed by the
opposite party no.2 did not make a mention of
the provision under which it was filed. Learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 has
submitted that the application had been filed
under the provisions contained in under Order I
Rule 10 (2) of the CPC. Order 1 of the CPC deals
with "Parties to Suits". The application for
impleadment was filed in execution proceedings
and not in a suit. The execution proceedings
have also not been filed for execution of any
decree passed in a suit, rather it was for
execution
of
an
arbitration
award.
The
procedure
governing
the
executions
proceedings is contained in Order XXI of CPC
which in itself is a self-contained code. There is
no provision in Order XXI of the CPC which
empowers the court to order impleadment of
any new party in execution proceedings, which
party was not there in the arbitration
proceedings in which the arbitration award was
passed. (Para 21)

The provision for substitution of parties in the
proceedings of suit are contained in Order XXII
C.P.C. Rule 10 whereof provides for substitution
of the transferee in case of assignment, creation
or devolution of any interest during pendency of
the suit but in the present case, the transfer was
not made during pendency of the arbitration
proceedings and it was made long after passing
of the arbitration award. (Para 25)

The opposite party no. 2 filed the application for
execution
of
the
arbitration
award
on
25.07.2006, but it did not file any application for
attachment of the properties of the judgment
debtor M/s Malvika Steels Ltd. under the
provisions of Order XXI C.P.C. Therefore, there
2240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was no bar against the properties of Malvika
Steels Ltd. being sold by the Debt Recovery
Tribunal by holding an auction. The petitioner
has purchased the properties in an auction held
by the Debt Recovery Tribunal without any
encumbrance on 'AS IS WHERE IS' basis.
Therefore, the petitioner got absolute rights in
the property of Malvika Steels Ltd. purchased in
an auction held by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
(Para 26)

In these circumstances the petitioner cannot be
held liable to satisfy the arbitration award that
was passed against the Malvika Steels Ltd. and
it can neither be impleaded nor be substituted in
the execution proceedings. (Para 27)

Petition allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

Southern Power Distribution Co. of Telangana
Ltd. Vs Gopal Agarwal: (2018) 12 SCC 644

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Prashant Chandra, the
learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms.
Radhika Singh Advocate, the learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashwani
Kumar Singh Advocate, the learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 and
perused the record.

2. By means of the instant writ
petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner-Steel
Authority of India Ltd. has challenged the
validity of an order dated 20.08.2008
passed by the District Judge, Lucknow in
Execution Case No.22 of 2006, General
Manager, Northern Railway versus M/s
Malvika Steels and others, whereby while
allowing the application (C-31) filed by
the opposite party no. 2 - decree holder
for impleadment of the petitioner - Steel
Authority of India Ltd. as a judgment
debtor, the District Judge has ordered that
the petitioner-Steel Authority of India
Ltd. be substituted in place of the original
judgment debtor M/s Malvika Steels.

3. The petitioner has also challenged
the validity of an order dated 02.01.2010
passed by the District Judge, Lucknow in
the aforesaid execution case whereby the
application (C-36) filed by the petitioner
for recall of the aforesaid ex-parte order
dated 20.08.2009 has been rejected.

4. Briefly stated, facts of the case
are that the opposite party no.2-General
Manager, Northern Railway had filed
Execution Case No.22 of 2006 against
M/s Malvika Steels and others. On
07.05.2009, the opposite party no.2 filed
an application for impleadment of the
petitioner-Steel Authority of India as
judgment debtor no.11 stating that it had
come to know through daily newspaper as
well as through internet that judgment
debtor M/s Malvika Steels had sold away
its property to the petitioner without
satisfaction of the decree/arbitration
award and therefore, the petitioner should
be arrayed as judgment debtor in
Execution Case as judgment debtor
no.11.

5. By means of an order dated
11.03.2024 passed in this case, the parties
were granted time to file a supplementary
affidavit bringing on record a copy of the
order-sheet of the Execution Case No.22 of
2006. Learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 has supplied a certified copy of
the order-sheet, although the same has not
been filed along with the supplementary
affidavit. The learned counsel for the
petitioner does not object the certified copy
of the order-sheet of Execution Case No.22
of 2006 being taken on record without any
supplementary affidavit, as it being a
5 All. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Sultanpur Vs. District Judge Lucknow & Anr.
2241
certified copy, there is no doubt regarding
its genuineness.

6. A perusal of the certified copy of
the order-sheet of the execution case
reveals that the opposite party no. 2 had
filed the application dated 07.05.2009 for
impleadment
of
the
petitioner
on
16.05.2009. The Court had passed an order
for sending a copy of the application to the
petitioner through both ways, and had fixed
07.08.2009 for disposal of the application.
On 07.08.2009, counsel for the petitionerSteel Authority of India filed an application
(C-33) for obtaining copies of the
documents.
The
Vakalatnama
(C-34)
executed in favour of the learned counsel
for the petitioner was also filed. The
District Judge passed an order that Steel
Authority of India Ltd. was not a party to
the execution case and necessary steps be
taken for making it a party and the matter
was ordered to be put up on 20.08.2009 for
further orders.

7. On 20.08.2009, the District Judge
passed the impugned order allowing the
application (C-31). It is recorded in the
order dated 20.08.2009 that the decree
holder had filed an application (C-31) for
impleadment
of
the
petitioner-Steel
Authority of India as judgment debtor in
place of Malvika Steels and this application
was supported by an affidavit. The order
states that the opposite party no. 2 had filed
extracts from internet showing that M/s
Malvika Steels had been purchased by the
petitioner - Steel Authority of India Ltd.
and this fact had not been denied by the
petitioner who had appeared through
counsel on previous date. Considering the
aforesaid facts, the District Judge allowed
the impleadment application (C-31) by
referring
to
it
as
'the
substitution
application' and ordered the decree holder
to make necessary amendments forthwith
and give copies of the entire record to the
learned counsel for the petitioner within ten
days. The matter was posted for 21.10.2009
and the petitioner was given opportunity to
file its objections within twenty days from
the receipt of the copies of the record.

8. On 22.09.2009, the petitioner
filed an application under Order XXI Rule
106 read with section 151 of C.P.C. for
setting aside the order dated 20.08.2009.
The Court passed an order directing the
petitioner to take requisite steps for filing
the application in proper format within a
week. The petitioner filed the application
for recall of the order dated 20.08.2009 (C36) on the proper format on 29.09.2009, i.e.
within the time of one week granted by
means
of
the
earlier
order
dated
22.09.2009. As this application had been
filed beyond the period of thirty days
mentioned in Rule 106 (3) and the
petitioner filed an application (C-39) under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay in filing the
application for recall of the order, which
was supported by an affidavit (C-40). On
19.11.2011 three days time were granted
for filing objections against the petitioner's
application. The objections C-41 was filed
on 26.11.2009. The petitioner filed its reply
to the objections (C-43) against the
objection on 01.12.2009 and the application
for recall of the ex-parte order was rejected
by means of the order dated 02.01.2010,
which has also been assailed in this writ
petition.

9. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner Shri Prashant Chandra Senior
Advocate submitted that the execution case
in which the petitioner has been substituted
as the judgment debtor, has been filed for
execution of an arbitration award passed in
2242 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
arbitration proceedings to which the
petitioner was not a party. The arbitration
proceedings had been instituted by the
opposite party no.2 - General Manager,
Northern Railways, Baroda House, New
Delhi against the judgment debtor M/s
Malvika Steels and its directors etc., and the
arbitration award dated 26.12.2012 was
passed
against
M/s
Malvika
Steels.
Therefore, the petitioner, who was not a
party to the arbitration proceedings or the
arbitration award, could not have been
impleaded in the execution proceedings. In
any case, while allowing the application for
impleadment, the District Judge could not
have ordered substitution of the petitioner
in place of the judgment debtors and
deleting the names of the judgment debtors
from the array of the parties.

10. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner further submitted that the
application for impleadment was filed on
the basis of newspaper reports and
information taken from the internet,
without disclosing the website from which
the information was allegedly taken. A
mere newspaper report or information
taken from an undisclosed website on the
internet cannot form the basis of an order
for impleadment/substitution of any party
to an execution case.

11. The learned counsel for the
petitioner also submitted that the averments
made in the application for impleadment
that M/s Malvika Steels has been purchased
by the petitioner Steel Authority of India
Ltd., is an incomplete and misleading
statement as the petitioner-Steel Authority
of India Ltd. has purchased some assets of
M/s Malvika Steels in an auction held by
the Debts Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi in
furtherance of R.C. No.121/2005 issued for
enforcement of an order passed in O.A.
No.145 of 2002, and it is wrong to say that
the petitioner has purchased M/s Malvika
Steels Ltd. company itself.

12. The learned counsel for the
petitioner further submitted that the order
dated 20.08.2009 was passed in absence of
the petitioner or its counsel and therefore, it
was an ex-parte order and the District Judge
has committed an error while rejecting the
application for setting aside the order dated
20.08.2009 holding that the order is not exparte. The District Judge further held that
even if the order was ex-parte, application
for recall of the order ought to have been
filed on the same day or the following day
and the application filed beyond the
prescribed limitation period of 30 days
belies the contention that the order dated
20.08.2009 is ex-parte.

13. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Southern Power Distribution Co. of
Telangana Ltd. v. Gopal Agarwal: (2018)
12 SCC 644 in which the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had held that an auction-purchaser in
an auction-sale conducted by the Official
Liquidator
on
"as-is-where-is"
and
"whatever-there-is" basis was not liable for
payment of arrears of the previous owner of
the property.

14. Opposing the writ petition, Shri
Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the opposite party no.2-General Manager,
Norther Railway, has submitted that the
order dated 20.08.2009 was not an ex-parte
order, as the petitioner has already put in
appearance before the District Judge on
07.08.2009 by filing Vakalatnama in favour
of its counsel. He has further submitted that
even if the order was ex-parte, since the
petitioner
had
knowledge
of
the
5 All. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Sultanpur Vs. District Judge Lucknow & Anr.
2243
proceedings, he ought to have filed an
application for recall of the order promptly
and the application filed beyond the
prescribed period of limitation of 30 days,
has rightly been rejected by the trial court.

15. I have heard the submissions of
the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the record.

16. The facts, which emerge from the
pleadings and submissions of the parties are
that the opposite party no.2 - General
Manager, Northern Railways had instituted
an arbitration claim against M/s Malvika
Steels Ltd. The Arbitrator passed an
arbitration award dated 26.12.2005 in
favour of the opposite party no. 2. The
opposite party no.2 filed Execution Case
No.22 of 2006 for enforcement of the
aforesaid arbitration award in the Court of
District Judge, Lucknow and the opposite
party nos.1 to 10 arrayed in that execution
application were the judgment debtor M/s
Malvika
Steels
Ltd.
and
its
Director/Officers.

17. The opposite party no.2 filed an
application
for
impleadment
of
the
petitioner as judgment debtor no.11, stating
that it came to know through daily
newspaper as well as through internet that
the judgment debtor M/s Malvika Steels
Ltd. had sold the property in dispute
without satisfaction of decree/arbitration
award to the petitioner-Steel Authority of
India Ltd. and therefore, Steel Authority of
India Ltd. has become a necessary party. It
was prayed that Steel Authority of India
Ltd., who has purchased the assets, share
and
other
movable
and
immovable
properties of M/s Malvika Steels Ltd., may
be arrayed as judgment debtor no.11.

18. The application (C-31) prepared
on 07.05.2009 and it was filed on
16.05.2009, on which date, the District
Judge passed an order that a copy of the
application to be sent to the petitioner
through both ways and fixed 07.08.2009 for
its disposal. The petitioner had put in
appearance before the District Judge
through its counsel on 07.08.2009 and
without the application for impleadment
having been considered by the District
Judge stated in the order dated 07.08.2009
that
necessary
steps
be
taken
for
impleading the Steel Authority of India Ltd.

19. The District Judge has allowed the
impleadment application by means of the
impugned order dated 20.08.2009 treating
the same to be an application for
substitution. Although the application
merely stated that the petitioner had
purchased some properties of the judgment
debtor M/s Malvika Steels Ltd., the District
Judge stated in the order that the company
M/s Malvika Steels itself had been
purchased by the petitioner-Steel Authority
of India Ltd.

20. In the impugned order dated
20.08.2009, the District Judge has recorded
that "J.D. (Sic. D.H) has also filed extracts
from internet which shows that Malvika
Steels has been purchased by the Steel
Authority of India Ltd. This fact is not being
denied by the Steel Authority of India Ltd.,
who had also appeared on last date." The
District Judge has held that in view of the
aforesaid fact, it was proper that substitution
application (C-31) moved by D.H. be
allowed. In the preceding paragraph of the
same order, the application has been
mentioned
to
be
an
application
for
impleadment of Steel Authority of India Ltd.
2244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. The application for impleadment
filed by the opposite party no.2 did not
make a mention of the provision under
which it was filed. Learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 has submitted that the
application had been filed under the
provisions contained in under Order I Rule
10 (2) of the CPC. Order 1 of the CPC deals
with "Parties to Suits". The application for
impleadment was filed in execution
proceedings and not in a suit. The execution
proceedings has also not been filed for
execution of any decree passed in a suit,
rather it was for execution of an
arbitration
award.
The
procedure
governing the executions proceedings is
contained in Order XXI of CPC which in
itself is a self contained code. There is no
provision in Order XXI of the CPC which
empowers the court to order impleadment
of
any
new
party
in
execution
proceedings, which party was not there in
the arbitration proceedings in which the
arbitration award was passed.

22. The application was filed for
impleadment of the petitioner as opposite
party no.11, in addition to the originally
arrayed opposite parties no.1 to 10. There
was no prayer for substitution of the
petitioner
in
place
of
originally
impleaded judgment debtor but while
allowing
the
application
for
impleadment, the District Judge has
ordered substitution of the judgment
debtor by the petitioner.

23.

The
petitioner
has
been
substituted on the ground that it has
purchased Malvika Steels Ltd., which is a
juristic person and which person has not
been purchased by the petitioner. Malvika
Steels Ltd. still continues to exist as per the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner

24. The arbitration award in favour of
the opposite party no.2 was passed way
back on 26.12.2005. After closure of the
arbitration proceedings and passing of the
award, the Debt Recovery Tribunal - I,
Delhi had held a public auction of some
properties of M/s Malvika Steels Ltd. held
on 22.12.2006 in furtherance of R.C. No.
121/2005 issued in O.A. No. 145/02, in
which the petitioner has purchased those
assets of Malvika Steels Ltd. on "AS IS
WHERE IS" basis.

25. The provision for substitution of
parties in the proceedings of suit are
contained in Order XXII C.P.C. Rule 10
whereof provides for substitution of the
transferee in case of assignment, creation or
devolution of any interest during pendency
of the suit but in the present case, the
transfer was not made during pendency of
the arbitration proceedings and it was made
long after passing of the arbitration award.

26. The opposite party no. 2 filed the
application for execution of the arbitration
award on 25.07.2006, but it did not file any
application for attachment of the properties
of the judgment debtor M/s Malvika Steels
Ltd. under the provisions of Order XXI
C.P.C. Therefore, there was no bar against
the properties of Malvika Steels Ltd. being
sold by the Debt Recovery Tribunal by
holding an auction. The petitioner has
purchased the properties in an auction held
by the Debt Recovery Tribunal without any
encumbrance on 'AS IS WHERE IS' basis.
Therefore, the petitioner got absolute rights
in the property of Malvika Steels Ltd.
purchased in an auction held by the Debt
Recovery Tribunal.

27. In these circumstances the
petitioner cannot be held liable to satisfy
the arbitration award that was passed
5 All. Dharam Raj Vs. Distt. Registrar Gonda
2245
against the Malvika Steels Ltd. and it can
neither be impleaded nor be substituted in
the execution proceedings.

28. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, the impugned order dated
20.08.2009 passed by the District Judge,
Lucknow, in Execution Case No.22/2006
ordering substitution of the petitioner in
place of judgment debtor Malvika Steels
Ltd. is unsustainable in law.

29. As the order dated 20.08.2009 has
been held to be unsustainable in law, there
is no need to examine the legality of the
subsequent order dated 02.01.2010, passed
by the learned District Judge, Lucknow
rejecting the application for recall of the
order dated 20.08.2009.

30. Accordingly, the Writ Petition
is allowed and the impugned order dated
20.08.2009 passed by the District Judge,
Lucknow, in Execution Case No.22/2006
ordering substitution of the petitioner in
place of judgment debtor Malvika Steels
Ltd., is quashed.

31. The parties to bear their own
costs of the litigation.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2245
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ - C No. 1001137 of 1993

Dharam Raj ...Petitioner
Versus
Distt. Registrar Gonda ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohd. Arif Khan, Mohammad Aslam Khan

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.P. Shukla, Dhirendra Kr. Dubey, Hemant
Kumar Mishra, Kapil Muni Dubey, R.P.
Shukla, S.C. Kashish, Udai Bhan Pandey

Civil
Law
-District
Registrar's
order
directing Sub-Registrar to register and
agreement-under
challenge-
Sections
35(3), 36 & 71(1) of the registration Act,
1908-Enquiry required to be conducted by
the registering officer before registration
of a document-Section 34 of the
Registration Act-if conditions laid down
satisfied-document will be registered as
directed in Sections 58 to 61 of the ActSection 58 of the Act-particulars to be
endorsed on documents admitted to
registration-Section
59
of
the
ActRegistrar
shall
authorise
date
and
signature to all the endorsements made by
him-Section 60 of the Act-provision for
issuance of certificate of registration-no
statutory provision in the Act-requires the
Sub-Registrar/Registrar to ascertain the
capacity of the executant to execute the
document by satisfying himself that the
executant holds a valid title in respect of
the property in question- Rule 300 of
Rules framed under the Act-Registrar to
satisfy himself that the person presenting
it has legal authority to do so i.e. to
present
the
document-Appeal
under
Sections 72 and 73 of the Act-mere
mentioning of wrong provision not fatal to
proceedings-Rule 364 framed under the
Registration Act, 1908-Registar has dealt
with the issues properly-impugned order
does not suffer from any illegality-petition
dismissed. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 25
& 26)

HELD:
A bare perusal of Section 34 of Registration Act
would indicate that Registrar is merely required
to satisfy himself that the persons executing the
document or their representatives, assignees or
authorized agents have appeared before him
within the time allowed for presentation. He has
to enquire whether the executant is admitting
execution of the document and whether the