ACT OF REGISTRY IS NOT AN ACT OF COURT

ACT OF REGISTRY IS NOT AN ACT OF COURT

VIDHI GUPTA 

BACKGROUND:

Petitioner SR Venkatesh Babu was the highest bidder on the auction process conducted in 2008, in regard to a property in Bengaluru. Since he was the highest bidder, his bid was accepted and on account of acceptance of his bid, he had deposited Rs.77,00,000 with the respondent-registered of the city civil court on January 12, 2009.

The registry in terms of the court instruction was executed and got registered a sale deed dated May 3, 2009, in the favour of the petitioner. However the obstructors' application was favoured by the Executing court, a substantial part of the property that was comprised in the sale deed was ordered to be retained by the objectors.

Petitioners challenge in the high court was not accepted and only by granting some equitable remedy, petitioner retained that portion of the property over which obstructors had no claim.

A rectification deed was executed in 2015 where the registry had refunded Rs.92,76,320 which had basically included the interest that was accrued due thereon, during the period between August 1, 2012, to March 24, 2015.

The petitioner thereafter wrote an application under Section 151 of CPC and requested the Executing Court to direct its registry to pay him the sum of money of Rs.22,52,250. He contended that if he would have deposited the sum of money that he had deposited in the bid, in the bank, he would have earned the interest since 2009. But this request was not accepted by the Executing Court and thus, this order was challenged in the High Court of Karnataka.

Facts presented by Advocate of Petitioner:

Petitioner’s advocated Abhinay Y T argued and said that the court had given specific order which directed the registry deposit in a Nationalized bank and because the registry was not obeyed, the petitioner had full right to receive his loss of interest. Though the court enjoys its immunity here, the same does not extend to the ministerial functionaries of the registry and the registry can recover the same from its erring officials.

The Registry Opposed and said:

Advocate General R.Subramanya said that registry acts as an extended arm of the court and therefore even if there was some mistake, that would not give a choate cause of action for maintaining the writ petition in absence of a legal provision to the contrary. The advocated said that there was a lapse in the part of the petitioner that he did not seek the implementation of the lower court order for depositing his amount in the bank; in any law event, the public remedy does not avail to the petitioner.

ALSO READ: Sudha Bharadwaj, Arun Ferrieira and Vernon Gonslaves Bail Denied

JUDGEMENT (ACT OF REGISTRY IS NOT AN ACT OF COURT):

The court observed that despite passing the two orders the money of petitioner was not deposited in the bank. During the period between 21.04.2009 and 31.07.2012, if petitioner’s money would have been invested in the bank he would have earned huge advantage and disadvantage to none; but this was not done by the registry of lower court and thus, the petitioner was unjustifiably put to loss of money and now is entitled to be compensated because act of registry is not an act of court and therefore the immunity available to court is not available to registry. The principle of Ubi jus ibi remedium was stated here and the court said that here the right of the petitioner was infringed here and therefore he is very much entitled to remedy.

ALSO READ: Indian courts have jurisdiction over domestic violence committed against Indians abroad