IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14070 of 2008 Between: Pokkali Balaji, S/o. Late Sri. Ramaiah Chetty,Hindu, R/o. Vanjivaka Village & Post, Kota Mandal, P.S.Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub-Registrar,Kota, Kota Mandal-524411, P.S.Nellore District. 2 Duvvuru Raja Koteswara Reddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy, R/o. Yelluru Village and Post, Chittamurru Mandal, P.S.Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.JAYAPRAKASH BABU Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in proceeding to register the land, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.37 of 2008 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kota, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri G.Jayaprakash Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner averred that in respect of land admeasuring Acs.5.05 cents in Survey No.175/2 and 3 of Yeragatapally Village, Vakadu Taluk, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, he filed a suit for partition against his elder brother Sri P.Vijayshekar and that the same is pending. His grievance is that pending the said suit, his brother is making efforts to sell the property to respondent No.2 and hence, he seeks this Court’s indulgence in preventing respondent No.1 from registering the proposed sale deed in favour of respondent No.2. Having carefully considered the averments contained in the affidavit and the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for the above mentioned relief. Admittedly, the suit for partition is pending between the petitioner and his brother. If the petitioner seeks to prevent his brother from alienating the property, the appropriate remedy for him is to seek an order of injunction against his brother. Since the civil Court is seized of the dispute between the parties, it is in a better position to appreciate the contentions of the parties with respect to the elements of prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury etc. As the dispute is purely civil in nature, between the private parties, the petitioner cannot avail the public law remedy of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy as indicated above. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.18157 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NARAGJUNA REDDY, J 2nd JULY, 2008. Note: issue c.c. in four (4) days. B/o kvni