JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 21.01.2022 and cancel the sale deed dated 17.04.2019 vide Doc. No.10429/2019 and dated 13.10.2021 vide Doc. No.24984/2021 by reconvening the property in the name of the petitioner.) 1.The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider his representation for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the 3rd respondent on the ground that the sale consideration has not passed on to the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is in the business of construction of building and that he had purchased the property, which is the subject matter of the present case, in the year 2006 and due to certain financial crisis, the petitioner, being in dire need of money, was inclined to sell the property and the 3rd respondent had shown his inclination to purchase the property for a sum of Rs.48,87,000/- as per the guideline value. Further to the negotiation, the amount, aforesaid, was agreed upon and towards advance, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) was paid by way of cheque bearing No.325832 drawn on State Bank of India, Villianur Branch, Puducherry and on presentment, the cheque the amount was honoured. Subsequent to the same, on the agreement of the 3rd respondent, who agreed to pay the balance sale consideration vide two cheques, the petitioner received two cheques bearing Nos.927730 and 937731 for a sum of Rs.21,93,000/- and Rs.21,94,000/- dated 17.4.2019 drawn on Punjab National Bank. Pursuant to the said receipt, the sale deed was registered on 17.4.2019 in favour of the 3rd respondent vide Doc. No.10429/2019 before the 1st respondent. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that on presentment, the said cheques were returned citing insufficiency of funds and though the sale consideration was not complete, yet the property was conveyed to the 3rd respondent. It is the further case of the petitioner that though he approached the 3rd respondent regarding payment of the balance amount, yet the 3rd respondent refused to make the payment and asked the petitioner to wait. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that though he approached the 3rd respondent regarding payment of the balance amount, yet the 3rd respondent refused to make the payment and asked the petitioner to wait. 4. It is the further averment of the petitioner that when he applied for encumbrance certificate to check on the status of the property, he found to his shock and surprise that the property was mortgaged to the 4th respondent for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- vide Doc. No.17489/2019 dated 21.08.2019 and enquiry revealed that the 3rd respondent along with his family members had moved out of the house in Puducherry and their whereabouts could not be traced. 5. It is the further averment of the petitioner that during the pandemic period, the petitioner somehow could locate the 3rd respondent and he entered into a Deed of Understanding which contained a specific clause that in the event of the 3rd respondent’s failure to pay the entire balance sale consideration, from the date of entering into the deed of understanding, the petitioner was entitled to cancel the sale deed, which was registered as Doc. No.8483/2021. It is the further averment of the petitioner that once again it came as a shock that on 11.3.2021, a deed of cancellation of mortgage was entered vide Doc., No.6813/2021 and a fresh mortgage was entered on 11.3.2021 fide Doc. No.6824/2021 for a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs), with certain persons. Therefore, culling out all the aforesaid facts with regard to the fraud perpetrated on the petitioner by the 3rd respondent, a detailed representation was made on 8.9.2021 to the Superintendent of Police, CB-CID, for registration of FIR, but the same was closed on 18.3.2022 citing the issue to be of civil nature. Thereafter, on 21.01.2022, the petitioner, along with necessary enclosures filed representation for cancellation of the sale deed dated 17.4.2019 vide Doc. No.10429/2019 and fraudulent sale dated 13.10.2021 vide Doc. No.24894/2021 and the non-compliance of the Deed of Understanding dated 30.03.2021 vide Doc. No.8483/2021 to the 1st respondent and also to the Superintendent of Police, CB-CID for registration of FIR under the provisions of the Land Grabbing Act. It is the further averment of the petitioner that on the said representation, the 1st respondent conducted enquiry on two dates, viz., 21.3.2022 and 5.4.2022 in which the petitioner participated. No.8483/2021 to the 1st respondent and also to the Superintendent of Police, CB-CID for registration of FIR under the provisions of the Land Grabbing Act. It is the further averment of the petitioner that on the said representation, the 1st respondent conducted enquiry on two dates, viz., 21.3.2022 and 5.4.2022 in which the petitioner participated. However, no orders have been passed on the said representation till date. 6. It is the further stand of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent along with the 4th respondent and other persons, viz., Kannan, Arumugam, V.Govindasamy and Venugopal, who are witnesses to the said sale, with ulterior motive are trying to cheat the petitioner and usurp the property in an unlawful manner and the petitioner’s representation having evoked no response, left with no other alternative, but to salvage his property through legal means, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that without the sale consideration being passed on, the sale does not get completed and once the same is established to the 1st respondent is bound to cancel the sale deed. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, the petitioner through documentary evidence, has clearly established the deceit played on him by respondents 3 and 4 and also the other persons in grabbing the property without paying the sale consideration and inspite of conducting enquiry, the 1st respondent has not taken any action on the said representation. Therefore, learned counsel prays for affirmative direction from this Court to cancel the sale deed and restore the property back to the petitioner by making necessary corrections in the revenue records. 8. Though notice was issued to respondents 3 and 4, however, the same was returned with the endorsement ‘Door Closed’. Therefore, the petitioner was permitted to take alternative service and in pursuance to the same, paper publication was taken by the petitioner as substituted service. Inspite of the same, the respondents 3 and 4 have not chosen to appear before this Court either in person or through counsel. 9. When the matter was taken up on 25.7.2022, learned Addl. Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the matter has been seized of by the 1st respondent and that appropriate orders will be passed on the same on or before 8.8.2022. 9. When the matter was taken up on 25.7.2022, learned Addl. Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the matter has been seized of by the 1st respondent and that appropriate orders will be passed on the same on or before 8.8.2022. Therefore, this Court directed the matter to be listed on 8.8.2022 with a further direction to the 1st respondent to file his report. 10. Pursuant to the said direction, the 1st respondent has filed his report after conducting an enquiry. The representation of the petitioner had been rejected on the ground that even if the whole sale price is not paid, the registered sale deed is complete in all nature and the title would pass on to the purchaser. It has been further held that non-payment of any part of the sale price will not affect the validity of the sale and that in order to constitute a sale the parties must intend to transfer the ownership of the property on the agreement to pay the price either in present or in future and the intention is to be gathered from the recitals and the above finding, is alleged to be based on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. For better clarity, the relevant portion of the said proceedings is quoted hereunder :- “6.1 As mentioned in para-2 of this report this Authority is conducting the enquiry under section 68 (2) of the Registration Act, 1908. Under the provisions of the said Act, the Registering Authority for registering such documents have to look after identification of the parties, payment of necessary fee and stamp duty, schedule of properties and other executive instructions/orders. 6.2 Accordingly, this Authority concludes the conduct of the enquiry to the complaint of Thiru. M.Anbazhagan that referring the settled law of the Supreme Court, even if the whole sale price is not paid, the registered sale deed is complete in all nature and the title had been passed on to the purchaser. As such the non-payment of any part of the sale price will not affect the validity of the sale on this ground. In order to constitute a sale the parties must intend to transfer the ownership of the property, on the agreement to pay the price either in present or in future. As such the non-payment of any part of the sale price will not affect the validity of the sale on this ground. In order to constitute a sale the parties must intend to transfer the ownership of the property, on the agreement to pay the price either in present or in future. The intention is to be gathered from the recitals of the sale deed, the conduct of the parties and the evidence on record. 6.3 In view of the same, it is also submitted by this Authority that in the written and oral arguments both the parties refers and disagrees to the bank transactions between them and for entering into that matter of verification of the referred transactions by this Authority it requires and consumes more time in exploring the fact of exact transactions. On the other hand, even if the contention of the complainant are taken to be true, that the entire sale consideration had not in fact been paid, it could not be a ground for declaring the referred sale deed as fraudulently registered deed. Therefore, the only remedy available to the complainant to seek other remedies in law for recovery of the balance sale consideration, if any, so and accordingly, the prayer of the complainant to declare the registered sale deed Doc. No.10429/2019 in the file of the Sub-Registry, Puducherry, is not maintainable under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.” (Emphasis Supplied) 11. From the report of the 1st respondent, it is evident that the 1st respondent has relied on the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the power of the registering authority to cancel a document, which has been registered, wherein the 1st respondent has held that it cannot be cancelled and has further held that the intention of the parties is to be gathered from the recitals in the document. 12. Before discussing much on the manner in which the finding has been arrived, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kaliaperumal Vs. Rajagopal, ( 2009 (4) SCC 193 ), which has been culled out in the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Latif Estate Line India Ltd. & Ors. – Vs – Hadeeja Ammal & Ors. Before discussing much on the manner in which the finding has been arrived, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kaliaperumal Vs. Rajagopal, ( 2009 (4) SCC 193 ), which has been culled out in the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Latif Estate Line India Ltd. & Ors. – Vs – Hadeeja Ammal & Ors. ( 2011 (2) CTC 1 ), which relied on by the 1st respondent to negative the representation of the petitioner deserves to be looked into and the relevant portion of the said decision is quoted hereunder :- “17. It is now well settled that payment of entire price is not a condition precedent for completion of the sale by passing of title, as Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines “sale” as “a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised”. If the intention of parties was that title should pass on execution and registration, title would pass to the purchaser even if the sale price or part thereof is not paid. In the event of non-payment of price (or balance price as the case may be) thereafter, the remedy of the vendor is only to sue for the balance price. He cannot avoid the sale. He is, however, entitled to a charge upon the property for the unpaid part of the sale price where the ownership of the property has passed to the buyer before payment of the entire price, under Section 55(4)(b) of the Act.” 51. However, there are circumstances to show that title was intended to pass only after the payment of full price. In such a situation, it will depend upon the intention of the parties as to whether they intended that transfer of ownership should be merely by execution and registration of the deed or whether they intended the transfer of the property to take place only after receipt of the entire sale consideration. Considering such a situation the Supreme Court in Kaliaperumal Case (Supra) observed as under:- “18. Normally, ownership and title to the property will pass to the purchaser on registration of the sale deed with effect from the date of execution of the sale deed. But this is not an invariable rule, as the true test of passing of property is the intention of parties. Normally, ownership and title to the property will pass to the purchaser on registration of the sale deed with effect from the date of execution of the sale deed. But this is not an invariable rule, as the true test of passing of property is the intention of parties. Though registration is prima facie proof of an intention to transfer the property, it is not proof of operative transfer if payment of consideration (price) is a condition precedent for passing of the property. 19. The answer to the question whether the parties intended that transfer of the ownership should be merely by execution and registration of the deed or whether they intended the transfer of the property to take place, only after receipt of the entire consideration, would depend on the intention of the parties. Such intention is primarily to be gathered and determined from the recitals of the sale deed. When the recitals are insufficient or ambiguous the surrounding circumstances and conduct of parties can be looked into for ascertaining the intention, subject to the limitations placed by Section 92 of the Evidence Act.” (Emphasis Supplied) 13. From the above decision, it is amply evident that though registration is prima facie proof of intention to transfer the property, it is not proof of operative transfer, if payment of consideration is a condition precedent for passing of the property. 14. Though normally it is construed that execution of the sale deed transfers the property to the purchaser, yet it is to be borne in mind intention of transfer of ownership on receipt of consideration would be a a determinative factor to be construed from the recitals in the document. In fact, the 1st respondent has also clearly adverted to the above in his finding, yet for reasons best known to him, has not adverted to the recitals in the sale deed to give a finding that there was no such intention which would give him the requisite right to interfere with the sale deed post registration. 15. In this backdrop, it is necessary for this Court to look at the intention of the parties from the relevant portion in the sale deed, which would show the mind of the parties while executing the said deed. 15. In this backdrop, it is necessary for this Court to look at the intention of the parties from the relevant portion in the sale deed, which would show the mind of the parties while executing the said deed. The relevant portion of the sale deed dated 17.4.2019, is extracted hereunder:- “WHEREAS the Vendor herein has already received an advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) by Cheque No.325832 dated 26th march, 2019 drawn on the State Bank of India, Villianur Branch, and the balance amount of Rs.43,87,000/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand only) in the manner hereinafter mentioned : i) A sum of Rs.21,93,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand only) by way of Bankers Cheque No.927730, dated 17.04.2019, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Puducherry; and ii) A sum of Rs.21,94,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand only) by way of Bankers Cheque No.927731, dated 17.04.2019, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Puducherry; WHEREAS THE Purchaser has requested the Vendor to execute this Deed of Sale in his favour for which the Vendor has agreed to do in the manner hereinafter appearing: * * * * * * * *” 16. The recitals in the above sale deed clearly reveal two things. Firstly, the advance amount was paid by the 3rd respondent by way of cheque drawn on State Bank of India, which was duly honoured. The said cheque was dated 26.03.2019. Upon honour of the said cheque, the parties had decided to enter into the sale transaction. The further recital in the sale deed reveals that two bankers cheque were drawn on 17.4.2019 and upon receipt of the bankers cheque, upon the request of the purchaser, viz., the 3rd respondent, the petitioner had agreed to present the sale deed for registration on the very same day. 17. The intention and mind of the parties to the sale transaction needs to be looked into to decide the genuineness of the transaction. Upon the first cheque having been honoured, believing the 3rd respondent, even though the cheque was issued on even date, viz., 17.4.2019, on the very same date, the petitioner had accepted to have the document registered, more especially, at the request of the purchaser, viz., the 3rd respondent. Here, the intention of the 3rd respondent ought to have been looked into by the 1st respondent. Here, the intention of the 3rd respondent ought to have been looked into by the 1st respondent. Really had the intention of the 3rd respondent, been that of a bona fide purchaser purchasing after giving the sale consideration, there was no necessity for any request for having the sale being concluded on even date, viz., 17.4.2019, the very date on which the cheques were issued. Parallely it should also be seen that since the cheque which was given for the advance amount was honoured, the petitioner, as a bona fide seller, had accepted the words of the 3rd respondent and had gone ahead and executed the sale deed. 18. A holistic perusal of the entire sale transaction between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and his subsequent acts of mortgaging the property without paying the sale consideration to the petitioner and the further act of the 3rd respondent in executing the Deed of Understanding with a clear clause therein that in the event of his failing to pay the sale consideration, the petitioner is entitled to cancel the sale deed would clearly go to show that the petitioner had trust on the 3rd respondent at the earliest point of time, which resulted in the petitioner executing the sale deed in favour of the 3rd respondent. However, the subsequent events, as unfolded above, have not only crucified the petitioner on the cross, wherein, he has been made to run from pillar to post to realize the amount due to him from the sale of the land, but is yet to see the colour of the coin till date. In fact, the intentions in the recital of the document alone would suffice to hold that the transfer of title to the property to the purchaser was only upon the seller realizing the balance sale consideration. Any other construction given to the recital would defeat the intention with which it had been entered into. 19. Be that as it may. Section 68 of the Registration Act clothes the 1st respondent with the requisite power to issue any order consistent with the Act with regard to any act or omission of any Sub Registrar subordinate to him. The said provision, for better appreciation is extracted hereunder:- “68. Power of Registration to superintend and control Sub Registrars. Be that as it may. Section 68 of the Registration Act clothes the 1st respondent with the requisite power to issue any order consistent with the Act with regard to any act or omission of any Sub Registrar subordinate to him. The said provision, for better appreciation is extracted hereunder:- “68. Power of Registration to superintend and control Sub Registrars. (1) every Sub Registrar 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.” 20. The aforesaid provision would take within its fold any act, which has been performed by the Sub Registrar, which is not in consonance with the provisions of the Registration Act. In the case on hand, though the act of the Sub Registrar in registering the sale deed is not an act of omission, but definitely when the intention of the recitals in the sale deed having not been fulfilled and no action having been taken by the Sub Registrar on the same, definitely it would squarely fall within the act of omission to enable the 1st respondent to take action. 21. It is not as if in all circumstances, no power is vested with the registering authority to cancel the sale deed, which has been registered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the decision in Kaliaperumal’s case (supra) has carved out the instances, where the registering authority could cancel the registered document. It is only that the registering authority should carefully use his power vested in it while going ahead to cancel a registered document. 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the decision in Kaliaperumal’s case (supra) has carved out the instances, where the registering authority could cancel the registered document. It is only that the registering authority should carefully use his power vested in it while going ahead to cancel a registered document. 22. Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that the 1st respondent has not adverted to the intention of the recitals in the sale deed in proper perspective and has not appreciated the purport of Section 68, which gives the 1st respondent the superintendence and power to control the acts of the Sub Registrar, which is nothing but sheer non-application of mind on the part of the 1st respondent and the callous attitude in which the 1st respondent has passed the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner, very well adverting to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but without following the same, which clearly shows his ignorance not only in the understanding of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court but also the power vested with the 1st respondent u/s 68 of the Registration Act. 23. Further, one other crucial aspect, which the 1st respondent has failed to appreciate is the fact is the intent of the 3rd respondent at the time of consideration of the representation of the petitioner. Before proceeding further on this aspect, it is to be noted that when notice was issued to the 3rd and 4th respondents, it was returned with endorsement “door closed”. Thereafter, taking substituted service, notice was issued by way of publication in vernacular dailies. The 3rd respondent had not turned up before this Court inspite of the notice issued to him and also the substituted service, but the 3rd respondent had appeared through counsel and had also filed written statement. The gist of the written statement, as could be extracted from the report of the 1st respondent, is as under:- “a) Thiru. P.V.R.K.Anjaneeya Guptha S/o P.V.Koteswara Rao has stated that he had fully paid the sale consideration to the complainant and the complainant himself returned the referred two cheques mentioned in the sale deed. The gist of the written statement, as could be extracted from the report of the 1st respondent, is as under:- “a) Thiru. P.V.R.K.Anjaneeya Guptha S/o P.V.Koteswara Rao has stated that he had fully paid the sale consideration to the complainant and the complainant himself returned the referred two cheques mentioned in the sale deed. Inspite of that the complainant have prepared two declarations (one registered and one notarized) in Tamil language, which he doesn’t know the content of it since he does not know Tamil language, compelled him to sign in the said declaration deeds and registered it also. b) It is further submitted that the complainant has not moved the Court of Law for dishonor of cheque even after all the cheques got bounced. Even if taken into consideration that the complainant was not paid the sale consideration for which he has given the cheque and got the sale deed registered, then also it will not come under anything stated under Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908. c) Further, it is submitted that sale deed is not void for nonpayment of sale consideration. The sale deed recites that the sale consideration was paid, but it is found that the sale consideration is not paid, the non-payment of the purchasemoney does not prevent the passing of the ownership of the purchased property from the vendor to the purchaser. The non-payment of a part of the sale consideration does not make the registered sale deed void nor does it constitute a valid ground for its cancellation. In the event of non-payment of price or balance price as the case may be thereafter, the remedy of the vendor is only to sue for the balance price. He cannot avoid the sale. If the intention is that the property should pass on registration the sale is complete as soon as the deed is registered, whether the price has been paid or not. Hence the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed in the interest of justice.” 24. The 3rd respondent blows hot and cold in the written statement filed before the 1st respondent. Hence the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed in the interest of justice.” 24. The 3rd respondent blows hot and cold in the written statement filed before the 1st respondent. While on the one hand the 3rd respondent claims to have fully paid the sale consideration and the complainant, viz., the petitioner himself returned the two referred cheques, yet on the other hand the 3rd respondent submits that for the allegation of cheque bounce, the petitioner ought to have gone before the competent court of law. Though such divergent stand is taken by the 3rd respondent in the written statement, yet the 3rd respondent has not placed even a single iota of documentary evidence to substantiate the payment made to the petitioner. Further, the 3rd respondent has gone on to state that the sale deed recites that sale consideration was paid, but as noted above, the sale consideration was given in the form of two bankers cheque, which, on realization alone would be deemed to have been paid and not otherwise. Mere parting of cheque would not entail making of payment and giving such construction would be nothing but lead to disastrous consequences. 25. Non-payment of sale consideration would not make a sale deed void so long as the recital in the sale deed does not show any such intention. But as aforesaid, the recitals in the sale deed clearly reveal the intention between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and the trust that the petitioner had on the 3rd respondent with regard to realization of the amount and only on the request of the 3rd respondent, the sale deed culminated on even date as that of the cheque. This clearly shows the intention of the 3rd respondent that all along the intention of the 3rd respondent was to defraud the petitioner on the basis of the trust reposed by the petitioner on the 3rd respondent. This clearly shows the intention of the 3rd respondent that all along the intention of the 3rd respondent was to defraud the petitioner on the basis of the trust reposed by the petitioner on the 3rd respondent. Such act by the 3rd respondent, if allowed to continue by relegating the petitioner to the rigor of civil suit to receive the balance sale consideration, it would be nothing but travesty of justice and this Court would be failing in its duty by not invoking its inherent jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution to set right the wrong and it would be nothing but a ticket to multiplicity of proceedings, which would culminate at the instance of either parties, which would be interminable. 26. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the act of the 1st respondent in passing the order negativing the representation of the petitioner by not properly appreciating the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is wholly misconceived, unsustainable, irrational and impermissible and the said order deserves to be interfered with. Further, this Court, in view of the discussion made above as to the intention in the recital of the sale deed, which clearly establish that actual payment of sale consideration is sine qua non for the registration of the sale deed to reach its logical conclusion resulting in the purchase of the property thereunder, in the absence of the sale consideration having been paid to the petitioner, definitely the sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the 3rd respondent would not stand the test of judicial scrutiny and definitely the said registration and the subsequent registration made by the 3rd respondent in favour of the 4th respondent deserve to be set aside rolling back the title to the property in favour of the petitioner. 27. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with the following directions:- i) The order dated 5.08.2022, passed by the 1st respondent refusing to cancel the registration of the sale deed is set aside. ii) The sale deed dated 17.4.2019 in Doc. No.10429 of 2019 and the consequential Doc. No.24984/2021 dated 13.10.2021 are hereby cancelled; iii) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to carry out necessary correction in the register and books maintained reflecting the cancellation of the sale effected by the petitioner in favour of the 3rd respondent. ii) The sale deed dated 17.4.2019 in Doc. No.10429 of 2019 and the consequential Doc. No.24984/2021 dated 13.10.2021 are hereby cancelled; iii) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to carry out necessary correction in the register and books maintained reflecting the cancellation of the sale effected by the petitioner in favour of the 3rd respondent. iv) Respondents 1 and 2 are further directed to remove all the encumbrances relating to the property, which is the subject matter of the aforesaid registered documents. v) The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out by the respondents 1 and 2 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. vi) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.