JUDGMENT Harries, C.J. - This is an appeal from a judgment and order of Gentle J. made in proceedings u/s 45 of the Specific Relief Act. 2. The Applicant, the Administrator-General of Bengal, was the administrator of the estate of one Ellen Stuart Turnage, deceased. The Respondent to the application was the Registrar of Assurances, Calcutta. 3. On January 12, 1923, one James Drummond Thompson, by an indenture of that date, sold to Ellen Stuart Turnage premises No. 1, Clyde Row, Hastings, in the town of Calcutta. In this indenture the premises are described as being within the thana and sub-registry, Alipore. Within the period allowed by law, the vendor, James Drummond Thompson, presented the indenture of conveyance for registration at the Alipore sub-registry office. He admitted execution of the document and it was accordingly, registered. 4. Later Ellen Stuart Turnage, the vendee died and on April 21, 1943, letters of administration to her estate were granted to the Applicant, who is now the Respondent. On January 23, 1946, the Administrator-General agreed to sell the property to one Mohammad Ayoob. 5. Whilst the title was being investigated, it was discovered that this property sold by James Drummond Thompson to Mrs. Turnage was really situate within the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Calcutta and was outside the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar of Alipore. It is to be observed that the learned Judge seems to have thought that the sub-registry of Alipore was within the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Calcutta; but it is now clear that the sub-registry of Alipore is subordinate to the Registrar of Alipore and the Registrar of Calcutta has no jurisdiction whatsoever over this office. 6. When this mistake was discovered, the Administrator-General wrote on May 14, 1946, to the Appellant, the Registrar of Assurances, pointing out that a mistake had been made and requesting him to take appropriate action so that the document could be registered afresh. On May 22, 1946, the Appellant, the Registrar of Assurances, replied that it was then too late for re-registration of the document in any office within his jurisdiction. 7. As the Appellant declined to have this document registered afresh, an application was made to this Court u/s 45 of the Specific Relief Act for an order calling upon him to re-register or to direct the re-registration of this document. 8. 7. As the Appellant declined to have this document registered afresh, an application was made to this Court u/s 45 of the Specific Relief Act for an order calling upon him to re-register or to direct the re-registration of this document. 8. The matter came before Gentle J., who eventually held that the Registrar of Calcutta was bound to direct the registration of this conveyance in the appropriate office within his jurisdiction. He, accordingly, made an order to that effect. It is from that order the present appeal has been preferred by the Registrar of Assurances, Calcutta. 9. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the document had been registered in the sub-registry at Alipore by inadvertence. Unfortunately there is no available evidence as to how this document came to be registered in the sub-registry at Alipore. The Administrator-General, in his letter of May 14, 1946, makes it perfectly clear that he had no information at all on the subject, but he assumed that ft was probably due to inadvertence. In that letter he observed: Unfortunately both parties to the conveyance are now dead and we are writing to you on behalf of the Administrator-General of Bengal, as the executor of the said Mrs. E.S. Turnage, the present owner of the property. The witnesses to the Conveyance are also both dead and there is, therefore, no person whatsoever who can now throw any light upon the circumstances in which the document came to be registered in the wrong registry. We can only assume and we imagine it to be correct, that at the time of the registration of the document it was mistakenly assumed that the appropriate registry was the Alipore sub-registry. 10. No evidence was or could be called on the question as to why this document was registered at Alipore. That being so, it is difficult to understand how the learned Judge could have held as a fact that it was registered by inadvertence. Of course, if it was not registered by inadvertence, but registered deliberately in the wrong office, no question of fresh registration could arise. Though it appears to me that there is no proof that the document was registered in the sub-registry at Alipore by inadvertence, I will assume for the purposes of this judgment that such inadvertence could be inferred from the plain facts of the case. 11. Though it appears to me that there is no proof that the document was registered in the sub-registry at Alipore by inadvertence, I will assume for the purposes of this judgment that such inadvertence could be inferred from the plain facts of the case. 11. Assuming the registration to be as a result of inadvertence, the question arises under what provision of law this document could be registered afresh. 12. It is clear by Section 23 of the Registration Act that, except in the cases mentioned in the subsequent sections, Sections 23A, 24, 25 and 26, no document can be registered, if it is presented beyond four months of the date of execution. Quite clearly, if Section 23 applies to this case, the document in question can never be registered afresh because twenty-three years have elapsed since execution. 13. There is, however, Rule 72 which is one of the Rules made under the Act which deals with cases where documents have been registered in a wrong office by inadvertence. That Rule is in these terms: (1) When a document relating to immovable property is registered through inadvertence in contravention of Section 28, the registering officer shall instruct the executant of the deed and the claimant thereunder to obtain from the Registrar of the district, in which the property is situate, a direction u/s 68 to the registering officer, in whose jurisdiction the property lies to register the document afresh. (2) When such direction is received, the registering officer concerned shall register the document without the levy of any fine or fee. If it is presented for re-registration within the period prescribed in Sections 23 to 26, no fresh endorsement u/s 58 need be recorded in such cases. In the certificate of re-registration endorsed u/s 60 reference shall be made to the order of the Registrar directing the registration of the document. The endorsement may be in the form.... 14. Section 28 of the Registration Act requires documents to be registered in the sub-registry in the jurisdiction of which the whole or part of the property is situate. Where the document has, by inadvertance, been registered in some other sub-registry, Rule 72 can be invoked. The procedure laid down by Rule 72 is clear The parties should approach the Sub-Registrar, who actually registered the deed. Where the document has, by inadvertance, been registered in some other sub-registry, Rule 72 can be invoked. The procedure laid down by Rule 72 is clear The parties should approach the Sub-Registrar, who actually registered the deed. If he is satisfied that it was registered through inadvertence, he then instructs the parties to obtain from the Registrar of the district in which the property is situate a direction u/s 68 to the Sub-registrar or officer in whose jurisdiction the property lies to register the document afresh. 15. The rule contemplates an approach first to the Sub-Registrar, who actually registered the document. If he agrees that the registration was the result of inadvertence, he will issue the necessary instructions, which would amount to a direction to the Registrar of the area in which the property lies to direct one of his subordinates to register the document afresh. 16. It is to be observed that none of these requirements were complied with by the Administrator-General. He asked the Registrar of Calcutta direct to interfere and cause the document to be registered anew. No approach was made to the Sub-Registrar at Alipore and no representative of the vendor, who is now said to be dead, was ever asked to join in any such representation. That being so, the Respondent, the Administrator-General, cannot complain that no action was taken under Rule 72. 17. Further, even if the Administrator-General had complied with the requirements of Rule 72, no order could have been made by the Registrar of Calcutta, because he could not order a fresh registration of this document within the period prescribed in Sections 23 to 26 of the Registration Act. As I have said, twenty-three years and more had elapsed since this document was executed and therefore, no order could have been made under Rule 72 by the Registrar of Calcutta. It is clear, therefore, that the Administrator-General could not pray in aid Rule 72 of the Registration Rules. 18. Counsel on behalf of the Administrator-General, however, has urged that the Registrar of Calcutta had ample power to direct fresh registration of this document by reason of Section 68 of the Registration Act. Section 68 is as follows: (1) Every Sub-Registrar shall perform the duties of his office under the superintendence and control of the Registrar in whose district the office of such Sub-Registrar is situate. Section 68 is as follows: (1) Every Sub-Registrar shall perform the duties of his office under the superintendence and control of the Registrar in whose district the office of such Sub-Registrar is situate. (2) Every Registrar shall have authority to issue (whether on complaint or otherwise) any order consistent with this Act which he considers necessary in respect of any act or omission of any Sub-Registrar subordinate to him or in respect of the rectification of any error regarding the book or the office in which any document has been registered. 19. The argument is that the Registrar of Calcutta when approached directly by the Administrator-General could issue an order u/s 68 to a Sub-Registrar or officer within whose jurisdiction the property lay directing him to register the document afresh. 20. In my judgment, there are a number of reasons why Section 68 cannot apply to this case. Before a Registrar can issue orders under this section, it must be shown that the act or the omission complained of was the act or omission of one of his subordinates. That is clear from the terms of Sub-section (2) of the section. The act or omission complained of here was the act of the Sub-Registrar of Alipore registering a conveyance relating to property outside the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar of Alipore. Counsel for the Administrator-General concedes that if orders are issued by the Registrar in respect of an act or omission of a Sub-Registrar, such Sub-Registrar must be subordinate to and within the jurisdiction of the Registrar. He has, however, contended that a Registrar can issue orders in respect of the rectification of any error regarding the book or the office in which any document has been registered, no matter whether the office is within that Registrar's jurisdiction or not, or whether the book is in an office within that Registrar's jurisdiction or not. This to my mind is an impossible construction to place upon this section. What this section means is that in proper cases a Registrar can issue orders where errors have been committed by his subordinates and where the results of such errors appear in books or in the office of such subordinates. This to my mind is an impossible construction to place upon this section. What this section means is that in proper cases a Registrar can issue orders where errors have been committed by his subordinates and where the results of such errors appear in books or in the office of such subordinates. As I have said, the error here was committed by a Sub-Registrar not within the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Calcutta, and therefore, the latter could issue no order u/s 68 to correct the effect of the error of the Sub-Registrar. 21. Further, even if the Registrar of Calcutta could issue orders to correct the consequences of an act of the Sub-Registrar of Alipore, he could only issue orders consistent with the Registration Act itself. That is clear from the plain words of Sub-section (2) of Section 68. The order which it is said the Registrar of Calcutta ought to have issued to his subordinate was an order to accept this old document and register it afresh. In effect he would be calling upon his subordinate to accept the document for registration twenty-three years or more after execution. The officer or Sub-Registrar could not register the document by reason of Section 23 of the Act and as the document could not be registered afresh it is quite clear that the Registrar of Calcutta could not issue orders calling for that to be done. That being so, the Administrator-General can have no assistance from Section 68 of the Act. 22. Lastly, it was argued that all that Rule 72 meant was that in a proper case an executant could have a document registered anew without payment of a fee if he came within four months of the date of execution. It was said that if he came later he could get the document registered afresh,, but he would not be exempted from payment of the fees. It is said that that can be implied from the words of Rule 72. Nothing can be implied from the words of Rule 72 which is contrary to the plain provisions of the Act and the Act provides that except in the special circumstances set out in Sections 23A, 24, 25 and 26 no document can be registered if presented beyond four months of the date of execution. Nothing can be implied from the words of Rule 72 which is contrary to the plain provisions of the Act and the Act provides that except in the special circumstances set out in Sections 23A, 24, 25 and 26 no document can be registered if presented beyond four months of the date of execution. No construction can be given to Rule 72 or nothing can be implied from the words of that rule which conflict with the plain words of Section 23. 23. In my judgment, the Registrar of Calcutta could not himself re-register this document or direct any of his subordinates to do so and that being so, his refusal when called upon to take action was right. this Court, therefore, could not issue a mandamus to compel the Registrar to do what would be unlawful for him to do; and the order passed must, therefore, be set aside. 24. In the result, therefore, this appeal is allowed, the order passed u/s 45 of the Specific Relief Act is set aside and the application dismissed. In the circumstances, I would make no order for costs in this Court or in the Court below. The original conveyance which is with the Registrar of Assurances will be returned to the Respondent. Mukherjea, J. 25. I agree.