HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 22771 of 2009 DATED: 23.10.2009 Between: Ch. Hanumantha Rao .. Petitioner And 1. The Sub-Registrar 2. Poluri Bhaskara Rao 3. Poluri Seetharavamma 4. Shaik Rasoolbi .. Respondents O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that he is the absolute owner and possessor of three-storied residential building bearing D.No.10-133/1 in an extent of 71 Sq. yards of land situated in Piduguralla village and Mandal, Guntur District, having purchased the same from one Erram Yakobu and others represented by their G.P.A. Holder, Erram Samuel, under a registered sale deed dated 03.07.1993. While so, the petitioner states that the 2nd respondent filed money suit in O.S. No.25 of 2002 and the 3rd respondent also filed money suit in O.S.No.43 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurajala against him, and during pendency of these matters, the 2nd and 3rd respondents obtained respective orders of attachment before the judgments over the property in question. The petitioner states that the value of the property in question is ten times more than the alleged amounts due on promissory notes, and therefore, he sold his property to the 4th respondent and executed sale deed dated 23.07.2009. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that when the sale deed dated 23.07.2009 was presented before the 1st respondent-Sub-Registrar, for registration, the 1st respondent refused to receive and register the same. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the 1st respondent. Having regard to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that there are some disputes between the petitioner and the 2nd and 3rd respondents and the matter is purely of civil nature, as such, the various aspects relating to civil dispute cannot be gone into by this Court in a writ proceeding. Hence, I see no merits in this writ petition. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the 1st respondent-Sub-Registrar is directed to entertain the sale deed dated 23.07.2009 purported to have been presented by the petitioner and the 4th respondent, and register the same in accordance with law. If, for any reason, the document cannot be registered, the 1st respondent- Sub-Registrar, may pass an appropriate reasoned order under Section 71 of the Registration Act. This entire exercise shall be completed not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In terms of the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J 23rd October, 2009 bcj