The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy WPMP.No.27364 of 2010 in/& Writ Petition No.1685 of 2010 Date: 27-09-2010 Between: Peeth Srinivasa Raju and another ..... Petitioners AND The Sub-Registrar, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District and 4 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.C.Ramesh Sagar Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.2: --- Counsel for respondent No.3: Mr.G.Vivekanand Common Order: This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 in accepting the deed of cancellation executed unilaterally presented by respondent No.2 canceling previously executed gift deed No.2940 of 2007, dated 07-05-2007, in favour of the petitioners and registering the deed of cancellation as document No.1972 of 2009, dated 21-07-2009 in the absence of orders of competent Civil Court, or High Court annulling the previous transaction as bad, arbitrary, illegal, and in clear violation of Rule 26 (k) (i) of A.P.Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 as inserted by amendment No.RR-1/2006, published in R.S. in Part I (Ext), A.P.Gazette, dated 29-11-2006, consequently to declare the document as ineffective.” Sri C.Ramesh Sagar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, sought for permission of the Court to withdraw the Writ Petition by filing WPMP.No.27364 of 2010. Sri G.Vivenakand, the learned Counsel for respondent No.3, however, opposed this request on the ground that after filing of this Writ Petition, the petitioners have filed another Writ Petition viz., WP.No.21162 of 2010 claiming substantially similar relief by suppressing the fact of pendency of the present Writ Petition. In my opinion, the filing of the second Writ Petition would not prevent the writ petitioners from withdrawing the present Writ Petition. However, the permission of this Court to withdraw the present Writ Petition would not obliterate the action of the petitioners in filing the second Writ Petition if the same is not permissible in law and also would not preclude respondent No.3 from raising all legally permissible pleas on the conduct of the petitioners and maintainability of the second Writ Petition. Subject to the above observations, WPMP.No.27364 of 2010 is allowed and the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.Nos.2282 to 2285 of 2010, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, are disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 27th September, 2010 lur