2017 PLP 120 (CLCN)

SHAMS MEHMOOD MIRZA, J.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased a house bearing property No.SE XXVI-IS-320/RH situated at Nai Abadi, Dairy Hadbast Harbanspura Lahore from his father Khushi Muhammad. On 26.02.2007 the sale deed in respect of the aforemenloned property was written and submitted before the Sub-Registrar Aziz Bhatti Town, Lahore Cantt., respondent No.1. On the same day, Riaz Akhtar, Advocate, was appointed as local commission for the purpose of execution of the sale deed. The sale deed was executed by the parties before the local commission on 27.02.2007. On 03.03.2007 the local commission submitted the sale deed in the office of respondent No.1 after payment of immoveable property tax as well as registration fee. The petitioner time and again visited the office of respondent No.1 for getting back the sale-deed in question but the same was not handed over to her. Finally on 07.03.2009 the sale deed in question was returned to the petitioner by respondent No.1 without it being registered along with order dated 07.03.2009, letter dated 02.01.2009 written by respondents Nos.1 and 2 and letter dated 20.02.2009 written by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1. The grounds on which respondent No.1 refused to register the sale deed was that it was not submitted within the prescribed period of four months in terms of section 23 of the Registration Act.

2. In pursuance of the summons issued by this Court, learned AAG appeared on behalf of both the respondents and supported their decisions for not registering the sale deed in question.

3. From the perusal of letter dated 2.01.2009 and its reply dated 20.02.2009 exchanged between respondents Nos.1 and 2 it appears that the local commission after execution of the sale deed before him on 27.02.2007 submitted the same for registration in the office of respondent No.1 on 15.09.2007. Having recourse to section 23 of the Registration Act, respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 came to the conclusion that by virtue of the delay in filing the sale deed, the same cannot be registered. 3(sic.) The crucial question for determination is whether section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 by its terms is mandatory or director in nature. Another subsidiary question that arises for determination is whether in the facts of the case, the ground for condonation of delay was made out. In 2000 UC 91 title Mst. Fazeela Tahira v. Aftab Ahmad and others it was held as under: "..... A careful study of various provisions of the Registration Act would reveal that compliance with the provisions of sections 34, 35, 58 and 59 of the Registration Act constitutes registration of the document particularly when the certificate required under section 68 of the same Act had also been endorsed and appended to the document by the Local Commissioner who was performing delegated functions of the Sub-Registrar. The subsequent proceedings or formalities as enjoined by the provisions of section 61 of the Registration Act are mere ministerial in nature and cannot be deemed to be so material so as to affect the very registration of the document." It is clear in the present case that all the formalities in terms of sections 34, 35, 58 and 59 of the Registration Act, 1908 stood complied with when the parties executed the sale deed before the local Commission on 27.02.2007 and it was so admitted by respondent No. 1 in order dated 07.03.2009. Therefore, the presentment of the sale deed in question before the Aziz Bhatti Town, Lahore Cant, Lahore, as per the dictum laid in the aforementioned case, was just a ministerial act to which the rigors of section 23 of Registration Act, 1908 do not apply. Similarly, in 2004 CLD 1600 titled Raja Amir Khan v. Bank of the Punjab supra, it was held that the provisions of section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 are directory in nature.

4. Another fact overlooked by the respondents in that the sale deed in question was filed with delay by the local commission who was a delegatee of respondent No.2 and, therefore, the petitioner could not have been penalized for this act of the local commission. This in itself was a good ground for condoning the delay in presenting the sale deed before respondent No.1. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is accepted and order dated 07.02.2009 passed by respondent No.1 is set aside to the extent it holds that the sale deed in question could not have been entertained and registered on the ground of delay. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 is directed to accept and entertain the sale deed presented by the petitioner. Respondent No.1 shall ensure that the entire process for the registration of the sale deed will be completed within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. ZC/M-68/L Petition allowed.