HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.No.20918 of 2011 ORDER: The action of the 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings dated 06.07.2011, refusing to register the two sale deeds in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 cts and Ac.0.50 cts situated in Sy. No.91 of Narayanareddy Palle village, Narayanareddy Gram Panchayat, Rayachoti, is questioned in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary and illegal and in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The impugned order dated 06.07.2011 makes a reference to I.A. No.31 of 2009 in O.S. No.10 of 2008 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoti, wherein one K. Chandrasekhar Naidu is said to have obtained an order of injunction against the respondents in the I.A. (defendants in the suit). It is not even the case of the 2nd respondent that there is any order of injunction against the petitioner herein or even that the petitioner is a party to O.S. No.10 of 2008. It would have been another matter if the 2nd respondent was a party to the suit and there was an order injuncting him from registering the document. That, however, is not the petitioner’s case. A Division bench of this Court in G. Narsaiah v. State of A.P.[1] observed: “Now a word about the powers of Sub-Registrar in respect of a document, relating to a property which has become subject matter of a suit pending in a court of law. Proceedings in that direction, we make it clear that if a competent Court of jurisdiction places a restraint on the Sub- Registrar from entertaining or registering the document, it has to be obeyed unless direction is vacated by the Court which has passed the direction or is set aside on a judicial examination by a higher court but pendency of a suit cannot ipso facto, act as prohibition on the statutory powers of registration of the documents vested in the Sub-Registrar under the Act. Significantly there is no direction in the suit against the registration which would prevent the Sub-Registrar from registering the document.” In the light of the judicial pronouncement aforementioned, mere pendency of a suit in which neither the petitioner nor the Sub-Registrar is a party, would not bar the 2nd respondent from registering the document in question. The impugned proceedings dated 06.07.2011 is set aside. The 2nd respondent shall consider registering the documents presented by the petitioner for registration in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, the Registration Act and the Rules made thereunder within a period of two months from today. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Date: 08.09.2011 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR [1] 2011 (3) ALT 415