JUDGEMENT J.N.Singh, J. 1. In sum and substance, both the writ applications are case and counter case. Petitioner of the first case has challenged an order of the Registrar-cum-Collector, Aurangabad dated 5.10.2006, annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ application, by which, he has refused to pass orders for sending back the sale deed to the concerned Sub-Registrar for registration, in view of Misc. Appeal of respondent No. 4, namely, Misc. Appeal No. 294 of 2005, being pending in this Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has produced the certified copy of order dated 26.11.2008 passed in the said Misc. Appeal, which shows that the Misc. Appeal of respondent No. 4, preferred in this Court against order of the trial court passed in Title Suit No. 119 of 2004/93 of 2005 refusing injunction, has been dismissed. Besides, petitioner of the first case has also prayed for a direction to the said Registrar-cum-Collector to release the sale deed and send it to the Sub-Registrar, namely respondent No. 3, for registration in accordance with law and for grant of a certificate of registration of the deed to her. 2. The short facts of the case are that in respect of house existing on C.S. Plot No. 279 of C.S. Khata No. 84 corresponding to R.S. Plot Nos. 752 and 755 of R.S. Khata No. 56 measuring an area about 2.5 decimals, a sale deed was executed by respondent No. 4 of the first case (petitioner of the second case) in favour of the petitioner on 29.11.2003. The sale deed was presented in the office of Sub-Registrar and the execution was accepted by the respondent on the same day. However, it was found that the sale deed was carrying insufficient stamp as per the fixed valuation of the land. Therefore, the Registration was withheld and the deed was sent to the Registrar-cum-Collector for impounding. A proceeding started before the Collector and by order dated 11.3.2004, as contained in Annexure-6, he passed orders for filing of Stamp of Rs. 26,500/- + Rs. 4000/- as a fine. Accordingly, petitioner complied with the order and filed the Stamp papers of the requisite amount as well as the fine amount on 15.3.2004 vide Annexure-1/A. However, the respondent also appeared before the Collector and filed her objection. 26,500/- + Rs. 4000/- as a fine. Accordingly, petitioner complied with the order and filed the Stamp papers of the requisite amount as well as the fine amount on 15.3.2004 vide Annexure-1/A. However, the respondent also appeared before the Collector and filed her objection. In her objection petition, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ application, she alleged that the sale deed was got executed by her under threat and coercion and it was got admitted also before the Sub-Registrar by her under fear of death. She was held up in custody by the petitioner and others and later on she was released and then she lodged a substantive case before the Town Police bearing FIR No. 508 dated 8.12.2003. 3. The impounding case was heard by the Collector and final orders were passed on 10.8.2004 by which the objection of the respondent was rejected and the deed was directed to be sent back to the Sub-Registrar for registration. It was noticed in the order that the respondent had filed a Title Suit for getting the deed declared null and void which issue, he held, was not within the jurisdiction of the registry authorities to examine. In the said order, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-4 to the first writ application, an observation was made that the Sub-Registrar, before registering the deed, shall satisfy himself that the land in question has not been registered earlier. 4. As noticed by the Sub-Registrar in the said order, the respondent had filed a Title Suit for getting the said deed declared null and void. In the Title Suit, plaintiff No. 1 was respondent No. 4 and plaintiff No. 2 was a subsequent vendee who claimed that the land was subsequently registered to him on 12.12.2003 on the basis of execution dated 26.11.2003. The plaintiffs had filed a petition for injunction in the suit which was dismissed by the trial court by order dated 15.7.2005, vide Annexure-5. 5. It appears that after rejection of the injunction petition, petitioner filed another petition before the Collector for passing orders for sending back the deed to the Sub-Registrar for its registration in terms of the order dated 10.8.2004. However, in the meanwhile since the plaintiffs had moved this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 294 of 2005, the Collector, by the impugned order, withheld from passing order on the said petition. 6. Mr. However, in the meanwhile since the plaintiffs had moved this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 294 of 2005, the Collector, by the impugned order, withheld from passing order on the said petition. 6. Mr. Nath, learned senior Counsel for the petitioner appearing in the first case, submitted that the registration of the document was withheld only on the ground of insufficiency of stamp paper. Proceeding for impounding of the document started in which after due notice and on furnishing the deficient stamp papers of the requisite amount and the fine imposed, the Collector passed order as contained in Annexure-4. Since the requirements of Indian Registration Act stood complied with in all respects, the respondents had no authority under the law to withhold its registration. Therefore, the Collector had rightly rejected the objection of the respondent and passed orders, vide Annexure-4, for sending back the document to the concerned Sub-Registrar for registration. He submitted that, in absence of any interim order, under the law, the registering authorities are not legally bound to take notice of any pending proceeding between the parties or any suit in respect of challenge to the transaction itself which can only be decided in the suit and not by the registering authorities. Therefore, the Collector was not legally justified in not passing any order for sending back the deed to the Sub-Registrar on the basis of mere pendency of Misc. Appeal of the respondent in this Court. 7. Mr. Dwivedi learned senior Counsel has appeared for the respondent No. 4 in the first case who is the petitioner in the second case. He submits that the order of the Collector dated 5.10.2006 has now lost its force as the Misc. Appeal stands disposed of by this Court. Therefore, in effect, the prayer of the petitioner made in the first case to quash this order becomes infructuous. He submits that the petitioner and others had got the deed executed and registered virtually on the point of pistol and, therefore, the transaction was invalid. He also submits that, in fact, the respondent had agreed to sell the property to another person and had executed the deed in his favour on 26.11.2003 itself. He submits that the petitioner and others had got the deed executed and registered virtually on the point of pistol and, therefore, the transaction was invalid. He also submits that, in fact, the respondent had agreed to sell the property to another person and had executed the deed in his favour on 26.11.2003 itself. When the petitioner and others came to know about the same, they procured a stamp paper of a back date i.e. 8.11.2002 and forcibly got the deed executed by her and got it registered under threat on 29.11.2003 itself. After the respondent was released from the custody of the petitioner, besides registering the FIR, she registered the sale deed, executed in favour of third person, on 12.12.2003. He submits that since after registration the relevant date of transaction relates back to the date of execution, the deed in favour of the petitioner cannot be now registered as the plots in question now stand registered in favour of the third person. He submits that for this purpose while passing the order dated 10.08.2004 the respondent Collector took the precaution by advising the Sub-Registrar to satisfy himself as to whether the land has been registered earlier or not. He submits that, though the respondent No. 4 has challenged the said order dated 10.08.2004 in his writ application, but the order may be implemented with the said advice of the Collector. As per his submission, now that the plots stand registered in favour of the third person, as per the said advice of the Collector, the deed in favour of the petitioner cannot now be registered. 8. Mr. Nath learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the first case does not dispute that the order dated 10.08.2004 has to be implemented now. He submits that the advice of the Collector is for the Sub-Registrar to consider and comply with in accordance with law. Therefore, it will be open to the Sub-Registrar to examine the matter in the light of the said advice and act in accordance with the said order dated 10.08.2004. But he disputes the other submissions of Mr. Dwivedi that since the deed in favour of third person had already been registered, the deed in favour of petitioner cannot be registered. Therefore, it will be open to the Sub-Registrar to examine the matter in the light of the said advice and act in accordance with the said order dated 10.08.2004. But he disputes the other submissions of Mr. Dwivedi that since the deed in favour of third person had already been registered, the deed in favour of petitioner cannot be registered. He submits that the registration of the deed in favour of the petitioner has to relate back to the date of its presentation when the second deed had not been registered. He also submits that under the law the registering authorities have no power to withhold registration of a deed, if it is otherwise complete in all respect, only on the ground that another deed in respect of the same land has already been registered. 9. In view of the submissions of learned senior Counsels for the respective parties, this Court does not find that there is any substantial lis in the matter to be decided. The Misc. Appeal of the respondent admittedly stands disposed of. Therefore, the order of the Collector dated 5.10.2006 has lost its force and now he has to act in accordance with his earlier order passed on 10.08.2004. The concerned Sub-Registrar is also required to act in accordance with the said order dated 10.08.2004 and comply with the same in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the manner in which the said advice of the Collector has to be complied with by the Sub-Registrar. 10. The writ applications are therefore disposed of. The order dated 5.10.2006 is quashed so that it may not cause any confusion in the matter. The concerned Sub-Registrar is directed to comply with the directions of the Collector in his order dated 10.08.2004 in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.