HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23307 of 2010 Date 20.09.2010 Between: Membe Siva Prakash. ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Warangal, Warangal District and another. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri K.Narsi Reddy Counsel for Respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23307 of 2010 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner felt aggrieved by the failure of respondent No.2 to consider and act on his representation, dated 13.09.2010, and seeking to go-ahead with the registration of a document that may be presented by a third party by name Rajiv Kumar in respect of the property bearing H.Nos.8-6-13 and 8-6-14, Station Road, Warangal, for his eviction. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.43 of 2003 filed on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Warangal by two persons including one Rajiv Kumar. Plaintiff No.1 is stated to have died. The property in question forms part of item No.4 of the plaint schedule. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.508 of 2000 in the said suit for interim injunction against raising constructions by the petitioner. The said application was dismissed against which plaintiff No.1 filed CMA.No.403 of 2002. A Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the said C.M.A., by order dated 16.03.2005, directed status quo to be maintained and the Trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months. It is stated that the said suit is still pending. The grievance of the petitioner is that while the suit is pending, plaintiff No.2 in the suit is seeking to alienate the property in favour of the third parties. He has, therefore, made a representation before respondent No.2 not to entertain and register the document that may be presented by plaintiff No.2. After hearing Sri K.Narsi Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not availed an appropriate remedy for restraining respondent No.2 from entertaining and registering the document. The dispute between the petitioner and the said Rajiv Kumar is purely civil in nature. As noted above, the suit filed by the said Rajiv Kumar is pending. It is, therefore, appropriate that the Civil Court should be approached by the petitioner either in the present suit or by filing a substantive suit for grant of an appropriate order to restrain the said Rajiv Kumar from alienating the property. This Court while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seldom entertains disputes of civil nature for issuance of prerogative writs. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed, without going into the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief. As a sequel to dismissal of the main petition, WPMP.No.29829 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:21.09.2010 usd