Judgment HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 13-9-2007 (Annexure P. 17) passed by the Registrar under the Registration Act, 1908 (for short the Act), whereby the sale deed allegedly executed on behalf of petitioners in respect of the land measuring 9 kanals 10 marlas was ordered to be registered. 2. The petitioners are owners of land measuring 9 kanals 10 marlas. Petitioner No. 2 has executed a General Power of At torney in respect of the land owned by the said petitioner in favour of her mother, petitioner No. 1. As per the stand of the petitioners, they entered into an agreement fo sell the land measuring 9 kanals 10 marlas in favour of respondent No. 2 i.e. Rakesh Kumar for a sum of Rs. 6,15,000/-. An agreement of sale was executed on 11 -3-2006 and the petitioners allegedly received a sum of Rupees One lac as an earnest money. The date for execution of the sale deed was 17-3-2006. As per the petitioner, a sum of Rupees One Thousand was spent by the petitioners, but the remaining amount of Rs. 99,000/- was deposited by petitioner No. 1 in her Savings Bank Account No. 26804 with the Punjab National Bank, Jalalabad on 13-3-2006. 3. As per the petitioner, though the date for execution and registration of the sale deed was 17-3-2006, but respondent No. 2 told petitioner on 16-3-2006 for execution and registration of the sale deed. Petitioner No. 1 was brought in the Chamber of Rajesh Bajaj, Deed Writer in the New Tehsil Complex, Jalalabad where the sale deed in question was scribed. However, the sale consideration recited as paid to the petitioners was Rs. 2,68,000/- but no mention was made in respect of agreement dated 11-3-2006. Respondent No. 2 told petitioner No. 1 that such sale consideration has been recited to save the stamp duty and the amount has been shown in the sale deed is according to the minimum rate fixed by the State Government for registration of the sale deed. Respondent No. 2 told petitioner No. 1 that the balance sale consideration of Rs. 5,15,000/- would be paid to petitioner No. 1 on completion of work. Respondent No. 2 told petitioner No. 1 that the balance sale consideration of Rs. 5,15,000/- would be paid to petitioner No. 1 on completion of work. Petitioner No. 1 signed the documents on the basis of such representation under blind faith, but when petitioner No. 1 demanded the balance sale consideration from respondent No. 2, the matter was put off and the petitioners were told that the sale deed would be registered after paying the amount to her. But the amount was not paid by respondent No. 2, nor he approached the Sub-Registrar for registration of the sale deed. The petitioner appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 17-3-2006 and her presence was endorsed by the Sub Registrar. The deed writer also communicated to the Tahsildar in respect of fraud in execution of the sale deed and snatching of the sale deed. The petitioners had made a complaint to SSP, Ferozepur on 2-4-2006, but no inquiry was made. 4. It is also pointed out during the course of arguments that respondent No. 2 filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of sale deed allegedly executed on 16-3-2006 on the same date i.e. 16-3-2006. In the said suit, the petitioners filed a detailed reply. The application moved by respondent No. 2 for ad interim injunction was declined by the learned trial Court on 25-5-2006, but with a rider that if the plaintiffs i.e. the present petitioners want to sell the land, the petitioners shall take prior permission of the Court before alienating the suit land. In pursuance of the said condition, the petitioners sought permission from the trial Court to sell the land on 5-9-2006. The petitioner attached an affidavit dated 13-9-2006 of the prospective vendee along with the said application. At this stage, respondent No. 2 moved an application before the Sub-Registrar for registration of the sale deed dated 16-3-2006. On the said application, the Sub-Registrar passed an order refusing to register the sale deed. The said order reads as under : "29-9-06 Sale deed dated 16-3-2006 from Ritu Bala daughter of Sohan Lai son of Dunna Mai and Abinash Rani wife of Sohan Lai son of Dunna Mai, resident of Jalalabad in favour of Rakesh Kumar son of Amrit son of Jiwan Ram resident of Jalalabad dated 13-9-2006 was presented by Rakesh Kumar purchaser under Section 86 of the Registration Act for registration. Notice was sent to the executants and proclamation was also done but the executants did not turn up to register the sale deed. In this situation, it is presumed that the executants are not admitting the execution. Therefore, I hereby refuse the registration of the sale deed and the sale deed be given back to the purchaser." 5. Aggrieved against the said order, respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 73 of the Act for registration of the sale deed dated 16-3-2006. Though the present petitioner submitted a detailed reply controverting the averments made by respondent No. 2 and also pointed out that respondent No. 2 has already filed a suit for specific performance, but the Registrar, Ferozepur passed an order on 13-9-2007 for registration of the sale deed on the basis of evidence recorded. The Registrar found that the said sale deed was read over by the deed writer to petitioner No. 1 and she has signed in token of its correctness. Since she had admitted her signatures on the sale deed dated 16-3-2006, she has executed the document. It was further found that delay in not presenting the sale deed does not exceed four months, therefore, on payment of fine not exceeding 10 times of the amount of proper registration fee, the sale deed was ordered to be accepted for registration. In pursuance of the said order, the sale deed has been registered on 17-9-2007 by modification of description of the land by inserting a note in the said sale deed. On the basis of the said facts, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for setting aside and quashing of the order passed by the Registrar. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order passed by the Registrar so as to register the sale deed when the suit for specific performance on the basis of unregistered sale deed is pending before the Civil Court, is not only unwarranted but not permissible. It is contended that the remedy under the Act is a summary in nature, whereas respondent No. 2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of the execution of the document and the consequential relief flowing therefrom. The order of Registrar to register the document in exercise of the summary power is wholly illegal. It is contended that the remedy under the Act is a summary in nature, whereas respondent No. 2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of the execution of the document and the consequential relief flowing therefrom. The order of Registrar to register the document in exercise of the summary power is wholly illegal. It is further contended that the petitioner has raised elaborate pleadings before the Civil Court as well as before the Registrar. Such disputed questions in respect of the execution of documents could not have been considered by the Registrar in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 73 of the Act, more so when the Sub-Registrar has refused to register the document initially. It is further contended that the document was presented for registration after four months from the date of its execution, therefore, in terms of Section 23 of the Act, the document could not be ordered to be registered. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Banasettappa Laljichikkanna v. District Registrar and another, AIR 1966 Mysore 310 and Chandeshwar Yadav v. Smt. Radha Devi & others, 2001 (2) Apex Court Journal 96. 8. Respondent No.2 has filed a written statement before this Court denying execution of the agreement of sale dated 11-3-2006, but asserting that the sale deed was executed on 16-3-2006 and the entire sale consideration of Rs. 2,68,000/- was paid to the petitioners at her residence. In additional affidavit dated 24-9-2008 filed, it has been pointed out that respondent No.2 has arranged the funds of Rs. 2.68 la cs in the following manner : "An amount of Rs. 24,000/- was withdrawn from CC account in the State Bank of Patiala Jalalabad on 13-3-2006. An amount of Rs. 1.65 lacs was withdrawn on 14-3-2006 from the said account, which is running in the name of M/s. Jonty Poultry Farms. An amount of Rs. 47,700/- was received by respondent No.2 on 14-3-2006 on account of sale of full wagon of the chickens and the remaining amount of Rs. 32,000/-was cash in hand with respondent No.2 on account of his business transaction." 9. An amount of Rs. 47,700/- was received by respondent No.2 on 14-3-2006 on account of sale of full wagon of the chickens and the remaining amount of Rs. 32,000/-was cash in hand with respondent No.2 on account of his business transaction." 9. On the basis of the said affidavit, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the sale deed was executed by the petitioner on receipt of the sale consideration and the Registrar has passed an order in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him for registration of the sale deed after recording satisfaction of the execution of the document by petitioner No. 1 and thus, such order cannot be interfered with in the writ petition. 10. During the course of arguments on 17-9-2008, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has stated that an application for withdrawal of the suit for specific performance of the contract dated 16-3-2006, has been filed before the Civil Court. He sought sometime to file an affidavit to this effect. However, in the affidavit filed, it has been pleaded that the application for withdrawal was filed on 19-9-2008. The learned trial Court has adjourned the proceedings in the suit sine die vide order dated 23-11-2007 in view of the pendency of the present writ petition. 11. The matter in issue requires to be examined from two different angles. Firstly, in respect of legality of the order passed by the Registrar under the Act in view of the pendency of the civil suit and secondly whether the transaction of sale is prima fa1 cie proved. 12. As per the case of respondent No.2, the plaintiff has signed the sale deed on 16-3-2006. The same has been presented for registration vide application dated 13-9-2006 (Annexure P. 11), by moving an application under Section 36 of the Act. The said application is moved after more than four months of the execution of the document, therefore, in terms of Section 23 of the Act, such document could not have been registered under Section 23 of the Act. Section 23 of the Act reads as under : "23. Time for presenting documents. The said application is moved after more than four months of the execution of the document, therefore, in terms of Section 23 of the Act, such document could not have been registered under Section 23 of the Act. Section 23 of the Act reads as under : "23. Time for presenting documents. Subject to the provisions contained in Sections 24, 25 and 26, no document other than a Will shall be accepted for registration unless presented for that purpose to the proper officer within four months from the date of its execution : Provided that a copy of a decree or order may be presented within four months from the day on which the decree or order was made, or, where it is acceptable, within four months from the day on which it becomes final." 13. The finding recorded by the Registrar that the document has been presented for registration within four months, is factually incorrect. The order passed by the Registrar in view of the factual mistake itself is not sustainable. It shows that the Registrar has passed an order without examining the facts carefully. This fact alone is sufficient to set aside the order passed by the Registrar on 13-9-2007. 14. Apart from the said fact, respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of Civil Court for specific performance of the agreement dated 16-3-2006. The petitioners have filed reply to the said suit. An ad interim application has been disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to sell the property after obtaining the permission of the Court. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is plenary in nature and, therefore, all questions in respect of execution of the documents and the receipt of the sale consideration or the execution of the agreement are the issues, which are required to be examined in the Civil suit. Though the statement was made before this Court that the application has been filed for withdrawal of the suit for specific performance but factually the said application has been filed only after the orders were passed by this Court on 17-9-2008. Once, the matter is pending before the Civil Court at the instance of respondent No.2 alone, wherein all the questions are required to be examined, the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 73 of the Act is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Once, the matter is pending before the Civil Court at the instance of respondent No.2 alone, wherein all the questions are required to be examined, the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 73 of the Act is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. As a matter of fact, if the Registrar refuses to register a document, an aggrieved party has a right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 77 of the Act. It necessarily implies that the order of Registrar is summary in nature and limited in operation. But once, the parties were before the Civil Court, the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Registrar lacks bona fide. The manner in which the Registrar has ordered registration even though the factum of pendency of the Civil Suit rais ing disputed questions of fact was raised, speaks volumes of the conduct of officer in ordering registration of the document. To say the least, we are of the opinion that the order registering the document lacks bona fide. 15. In Banasettappa Laljichikkannas case (supra), the Court has found that execution of the document does not mean merely signing, but signing by way of assent to the terms of contract of alienation embodied in the document. In the present case, the stand of the petitioners is categorical that they have not received sale consideration but that petitioner No. 1 has signed the document. The finding recorded by the Registrar is only based upon signing of document and not on the basis that the sale consideration was received by petitioner No. 1. Still further, the Hon ble Supreme Court in Chandeshwar Yadavs case (supra), has held that Section 77 of the Act, gives an option to the vendee either to file a suit under Section 77 of the Act or to bring a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell. In the present case, respondent No.2 having chosen to file suit for specific performance, the remedy provided under the Act, were not available to the said respondent. 16. In respect of the 2nd question, the petitioner has relied upon an agreement of sale dated 11-3-2006, the said agreement bears the signature of respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 1, further pointed out that a sum of Rs. 99,000/- was deposited in her Savings Bank Account on 13-3-2006. 16. In respect of the 2nd question, the petitioner has relied upon an agreement of sale dated 11-3-2006, the said agreement bears the signature of respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 1, further pointed out that a sum of Rs. 99,000/- was deposited in her Savings Bank Account on 13-3-2006. She has appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 17-3-2006. Said appearance has been endorsed by the office of Sub-Registrar. It, thus, appears that the stand of the petitioners that there was an agreement of sale on 11-3-2006 and, she appeared before the Sub-Registrar is sufficient to return a finding that the stand of respondent No.2 that there was no agreement, is not correct. Still further, the affidavit dated 24-9-2008, shows that the said respondent has withdrawn certain amount from the Bank Account from 13-3-2006, meaning thereby that the contract of sale was not executed at the spur of the moment on 16-3-2006. It Is not explained as to how and why, the sale consideration has not been paid through cheque or draft nor any payment was recited to be payable before the Sub-Registrar. The entire payment of Rs. 2.68 lacs is purportedly made in cash and at the residence of the petitioners. Such conduct leaves a strong suspicion on the entire nature of the transaction propounded by respondent No.2. 17. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Registrar (Annex-ure P. 17) is wholly illegal, unjustified and consequently, the same is set aside. 18. The petitioners have also made a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police on 2-4-2006 and as per the petitioner, no action has been taken thereon. Therefore, we direct the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur to take appropriate action on such complaint expeditiously.