ORDER 1. Of a note, the office objection regarding territorial jurisdiction has already been directed to be ignored vide order-sheet dated 2.3.2020. The instant petition is pending since 2020. The pleadings are complete and with the concurrence of learned counsel for the parties, who are ready to argue it finally, the petition is heard finally. 2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are claiming the following reliefs:- “2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are claiming the following reliefs:- i. Respondents may kindly be directed to register the sale deed produced by the parties for registration and hand it over to the petitioner. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 3. The facts in compendium are that on 25.1.2018 Shri Jairam, Sadaram and Ramratan sold certain land to the petitioners and submitted a sale-deed (Annexure-P/1) before the Sub Registrar for getting it registered with all requisite documents and stamp papers worth Rs.61,36,000/-. However, the Sub Registrar did not register the said sale-deed for no reason. The petitioners thereafter approached the District Registrar cum Collector of Stamps, Bhopal-2 and requested that procedure for getting the sale-deed (submitted on 25.1.2018 vide Deed ID No.8029493) registered be triggered and further proceeding be got done. On 6.2.2018 the office of Sub Registrar Bhopal-2 asked for a legal opinion from the Government Advocate empanelled for District Court, Bhopal asking that the sale-deed was submitted before the office of Sub Registrar on 25.1.2018 after completing all requisite formalities by submitting relevant documents and also by paying requisite stamp duty but from the documents, the office came to know about the fact that a civil suit bearing C.S.No.331-A/2005 was pending before the Court in which an order was passed on 2.11.2006 that the transferors of the said property namely Shri Jairam, Ramratan and Sadaram all sons of Asharam shall not transfer the said property to any other person. The document also contained an order dated 13.1.2015 passed in C.S.No.1026-A/2013 mentioning that CS No.331-A/2005 was withdrawn and present suit i.e. C.S.No.1026-A/2013 has been filed. The document also contained an order dated 13.1.2015 passed in C.S.No.1026-A/2013 mentioning that CS No.331-A/2005 was withdrawn and present suit i.e. C.S.No.1026-A/2013 has been filed. Thereafter, the Government Advocate gave an opinion on 9.2.2018 saying that CS No.331-A/2005 was withdrawn and thereafter new suit was filed i.e. C.S.No.1026-A/2013 in which as per the order dated 13.1.2015 Jairam, Ramratan and Sadaram, all three are entitled to get their sale-deed registered and as such sale-deed can be registered. The District Registrar has also sought opinion from the office of Inspector General of Registration in which it is mentioned that although the petitioners have submitted a sale-deed along with all requisite documents on 25.1.2018 for getting it registered, but that has not been registered even after lapse of much time. The said letter also contains that on the date of submitting the sale-deed, the Sub Registrar had no right to retain it in absence of any moratorium by any Court and as such it appears that the Sub Registrar deliberately did not get the sale-deed registered and he was waiting for some stay order of the Court and thereafter in Second Appeal No.1233/2016, the High Court passed an order on 15.2.2018 granting interim direction that both the parties shall not create any third party right in the suit property till the next date of hearing. Despite seeking guidance from the Inspector General of Registration, nothing was done thereafter and even the opinion of Government Advocate has been brushed aside and hence this petition has been filed. 4. In contrast, a reply was filed on behalf of the respondentsState taking stand therein that in pursuance to interim order granted by the High Court on 15.2.2018, the sale-document since remained unregistered on 25.1.2018 cannot be registered now. According to the State as per sections 52 to 60 of the Registration Act,, 1908 requisite formalities were not followed and therefore the Sub Registrar sought guidance from the Head Office, although of no avail and therefore as per section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, no right of title is created in favour of the purchasers/petitioners, ergo, sale-deed cannot be registered w.e.f. from the date of its execution i.e. 25.1.2018. To reinforce his contentions, Shri Bhave has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in re Har Narain (Dead) by LRs v. Mam Chand (Dead) by LRs and others (2010) 13 SCC 128 . To reinforce his contentions, Shri Bhave has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in re Har Narain (Dead) by LRs v. Mam Chand (Dead) by LRs and others (2010) 13 SCC 128 . 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per Rule 36 of the M.P. Registration of Rules, 1939, the Sub Registrar had no right to refuse to register the sale-deed and by keeping it pending before him, the sale-deed is deemed to be registered on the same day and copy of the sale-deed shall be returned to the petitioners. Merely because Sub Registrar did not discharge his obligation with ill-motive and was waiting for interim order of the Court that has been granted by the High Court on 15.2.2018, the petitioners cannot be denied for registration of their sale-deed produced on 25.1.2018. To strengthen his contention, he placed reliance on a decision of this Court in re Sarvajanik Jan Kalyan Parmarthik Nyas v. State of M.P. and others 2008 (1) MPLJ 537 . 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the documents made available on record. 7. Indeed, the sale-deed with all requisite formalities and requisite stamp duty was placed before the Sub Registrar on 25.1.2018. The office of Sub Registrar gave Deed Id No.8029493 but only because when objection was submitted by one Padam Kumar Bhatt, even though the legal opinion was sought by the Sub Registrar from the Government Advocate, but on the basis of objection of Padam Kumar Bhatt, he refused to register the sale-deed. Although as per Rule 35 of the Rules, 1939 there are circumstances provided under which the Sub Registrar can refuse the registration of sale-deed but those circumstances do not include the one as existing in the case at hand. Even Rule 36 of Rules, 1939 provides that registration cannot be refused on an objection raised by some person. Meaning thereby, the Sub Registrar failed to discharge his duties and only because objection raised by Padam Kumar Bhatt, he avoided registration of sale-deed whereas requisite formalities were done by the sellers and purchasers. In case of Sarvajanik Jan Kalyan Parmarthik Nyas (supra), the High Court has expressed the following view:- “7. Meaning thereby, the Sub Registrar failed to discharge his duties and only because objection raised by Padam Kumar Bhatt, he avoided registration of sale-deed whereas requisite formalities were done by the sellers and purchasers. In case of Sarvajanik Jan Kalyan Parmarthik Nyas (supra), the High Court has expressed the following view:- “7. In the present case the vendor of Annexure/P-1 has not denied the execution, it is only the Sub Registrar who is not discharging his duty to register the document (Annexure/P-1) on the ground that a dispute about title is pending in the Court of Nazul and the document cannot be registered during the pendency of such a title dispute. Duties and powers of registering officers are contained in Part XI of the Registration Act. None of the provision empowers the registering officers to refuse to register a document in case of dispute of title. Cumulative effect of the provisions contained in Part XI, XII. Rules 35 and 36 makes it clear that the Sub Registrar has no authority to refuse to register a document on the ground that the vendor/transferor of Annexure/P-1 has no title to the property in question and is not competent to execute the sale deed. Obviously, the vendee/transferee would derive by virtue of the register document, right, title and interest which the transferor had at the time of execution of the deed. There would be no effect on the validity of transfer merely on account of pendency of case before Nazul Officer. No transfer of immovable property is prohibited even during the pendency of such a dispute. Only thing is that the transferee would get the right, title and interest of the transferee, if its vendor succeeds in the litigation. Keeping this in mind, it cannot be said by no stretch of imagination that merely on account of pendency of dispute before the Court of Nazul, the registering officer has a power to refuse to register the document.” 8. Obviously, it transpires from the record that on the date of submitting the sale-deed for registration there was no restrained order for the office of Registrar to not register the sale-deed. In such a situation, the Sub Registrar committed illegality for whatever reason known to him thereby depriving the petitioners to get the sale-deed registered, which is still lying with the respondents. In such a situation, the Sub Registrar committed illegality for whatever reason known to him thereby depriving the petitioners to get the sale-deed registered, which is still lying with the respondents. Although objection raised by the State saying that since document has not been registered, therefore, no right is transferred in favour of the petitioners. The State has also relied upon the provisions of section 54 of T.P. Act, 1889. Although section 54 is not attracted in the case at hand for the reason that the petitioners are not claiming title over the property by virtue of sale-deed presented before the Sub Registrar on 25.1.2018. This petition is simpliciter for a direction to register the sale-deed produced by the parties for its registration and same be handed over to the petitioners. Ergo, this Court is of the opinion that when sale-deed was produced before the competent authority fulfilling all requisite requirements and the Statute does not provide any power to the competent authority to refuse the registration of such document and refusal was for no reason, therefore, the petition is allowed directing the respondents to register the sale-deed which was produced before the Sub Registrar on 25.1.2018. It is demystified that the restrained order passed by the High Court in Second Appeal came in existence only on 15.2.2018 which is apparently after the date of submission of saledeed, therefore, the said order will not come in the way of registering officer nor will it curtail his power to register the sale-deed. Had it been a case where sale-deed was placed for registration after grant of interim order by the Court, the Sub Registrar could have refused by virtue of restrained order passed by the High Court, but not otherwise. 9. In view of the above, the petition is allowed directing the respondents to register the sale-deed w.e.f. 25.1.2018 and hand over the registered sale-deed to the petitioners.