THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23793 of 2010 Date:27.09.2010 Between: Bezwada Raja Rao ..... Petitioner AND The District Registrar and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 and 4:-- The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to register any document presented by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in respect of the property admeasuring Acs.1.44 cents in R.S.Nos.333/10 and 333/2 and Acs.2.50 cents in R.S.No.333/6 of Vellaturu Village, G.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner claims to be an agreement holder for purchase of the abovementioned property. He has filed O.S.No.174 of 2004 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, against respondent Nos.3 and 4. The said suit was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner filed A.S.No.9 of 2010 in this Court. The petitioner also filed A.S.M.P.No.21 of 2010 for temporary injunction restraining respondent Nos.3 and 4 from alienating the suit schedule property pending disposal of the appeal. By order dated 06.01.2010, this Court granted interim order as prayed for and the same was extended by order dated 16.04.2010. The petitioner averred that on coming to know that despite the subsistence of an order of injunction, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are seeking to alienate the property, he has made a representation before respondent No.2 on 21.09.2010 to comply with the interim order of this Court. Apprehending that respondent No.2 may receive the documents that may be submitted by respondent Nos.3 and 4 and register the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. In my opinion, this writ petition is wholly misconceived. The petitioner’s interests have already been protected by the abovementioned interim order passed by this Court in the pending appeal. In violation of the said interim order, respondent Nos.3 and 4 cannot alienate the property. If they do so, they will be doing the same at their peril exposing themselves to the contempt of the order of this Court. In this factual background, it is wholly unnecessary for the petitioner to seek a Mandamus against respondent Nos.1 and 2 restraining them from registering the documents. Instead of availing the appropriate remedy for enforcement of the order of this Court already granted against respondent Nos.3 and 4, the petitioner has needlessly filed this writ petition. For the aforementioned reasons, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition by exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.30445 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th September, 2010 GHN