IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 4719 of 2009 Between: Doddapuneni Rama Rao S/o. Chinna Narasaiah R/o. 4-297, Chandrupatla, Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Registrar, Khammam District Khammam. 2 The Sub Registrar, Kallur, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders dated 21- 10-2008 of the 2nd respondent in refusing to register the document presented by the petitioner on 29-5-2008 vide refusal No. 01/2008 on the ground that there is an injunction order in IA No. 1825/01 in OS No. 4/2001, on the file of the principal District Judge even though suit schedule property and property purchased by the petitioner is different and neither the petitioner nor his vendor are the parties in the suit and further action of the 1st respondent in not passing any orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner on 26-11-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and violative Art. 14, 19, 21 and 300(A) of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to register the aforesaid document presented by the petitioner forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4719 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner presented a sale deed in respect of 270 sq. yards of land in Sy.Nos.401 and 402 of Kallur village, Khammam District, before the 2nd respondent. A memo dated 11.06.2008 was issued by the 2nd respondent informing the petitioner that an order of injunction was passed by the Court of the Principal District Judge, Khammam, in O.S.No.4 of 2001 and in that view of the matter, the document cannot be registered. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 17.06.2008. Not being satisfied with that, the 2nd respondent passed an order on 21.10.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. The petitioner states that the property covered by order passed by the Court of the Principal District Judge, Khammam is different, and still the document is not being admitted for registration. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner has already availed the remedy of appeal before the 1st respondent. He can place relevant material before the 1st respondent including the copy of the order of injunction passed by the Civil Court and the relevant statements touching upon the identity of the property. This Court cannot entertain the petition when the appeal is pending. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to place the relevant material in the appeal pending before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent shall take into account all the legal and factual pleas placed by the petitioner and dispose of the appeal within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J 13.03.2009 v v