The Bombay High Court recently delivered a significant judgment clarifying that when a party is legally restrained by a court from executing or registering a document, that period must be excluded while calculating the limitation period under the Registration Act, 1908. This landmark ruling came in the case of Grand Centrum Realty LLP v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. where the Court directed the registration of two agreements for sale, executed in 2018, which were earlier denied registration by the Sub-Registrar citing delay.
The Division Bench, comprising Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale, was hearing writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Grand Centrum Realty LLP. The firm had entered into two agreements for sale with a public charitable trust, Vidhyarthi Sahayak Mandal, on March 6, 2018. Although the agreements were validly executed, they were not presented for registration due to pending litigation and a restraint order passed by the Court.
Read also:- Eviction on New Grounds Valid Even After Earlier Dismissal: Rajasthan High Cour
“The period between 26th April 2018 and 8th May 2025 must be excluded for the purpose of calculation of the period of limitation under the provisions of the Registration Act.” — Bombay High Court
The petitioner was prevented from presenting the documents because the High Court, through an interim order dated April 26, 2018, had restrained the execution of conveyances. This interim stay remained in effect until May 8, 2025, when the petitions were dismissed. Shortly after, on June 16, 2025, the documents were submitted for registration, but the Registrar rejected them, citing Section 23 of the Registration Act, which mandates presentation within four months of execution.
Read also:- Parole Pleas Must Be Resolved Within 4 Months: Punjab & Haryana High Court Warns Jail Authorities
“A legal right accrued to a party to get a document registered cannot stand defeated when the reasons for delay are beyond the party’s control.” — Bombay High Court
The petitioner argued that the delay was neither intentional nor due to negligence but was the result of a restraint order passed by a court. The High Court agreed and relied on a previous judgment in Nestor Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, where it was held that registration can be permitted beyond the prescribed time if the delay is genuine and beyond the party’s control.
Read also:- Intelligence Officer Gets Bail in Kerala High Court in Alleged Suicide Abetment Case
The Court emphasized that excluding the period of restraint, the effective time used by the petitioner to present the documents did not exceed the four-month limit. Hence, the Registrar's refusal was found unsustainable in law.
“The bonafide delay beyond the control of the petitioner, clearly not attributable to any intentional or deliberate act or negligence, must be excluded in allowing registration.” — Bombay High Court
Accordingly, the Court quashed the orders of the Sub-Registrar and directed that both agreements dated March 6, 2018, be accepted for registration.
Case Title: Grand Centrum Realty LLP v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Writ Petition Nos. 8411 & 8412 of 2025]