IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 9258 of 2008 Between: Pyla Durgamma W/o.Venkata Rao R/o.Satyanararaopet, Eastern Street, Eluru, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub-Registrar, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 Mandala Chandrasekhar S/o.Badrachalam Eastern Street, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 Raja Haribabu S/o.Late Jayaram Eastern Street, Eluru, West Godavari District. 4 Mungara Venkateswara Rao S/o.Annooku Paydichintapadu (V), Eluru (M), West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of 2nd respondent and 3rd respondent without clear off the petitioner's debt amount and Registering the house property in the name of the 4th respondent are illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to law and consequently to direct the 1st respondent not Register the house property situated in Eluru town, Eastern Street, Kummaravi Street, Municipal C Ward, in T.S.No. 1225, 1225/2 and 1226 for an extent of Sq. yards 210.80 and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.P.RAJU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 9258 of 2008 Oral Order: It appears that petitioner and respondent No.2 entered into loan transactions, under which the petitioner claims to have paid Rs.3,00,000/- to respondent No.2 by taking a promissory note for the said amount. The petitioner states that respondent No.2 paid interest for certain period. Thereafter, when he did not pay the interest, respondent No.3, namely father of respondent No.2 agreed to repay the loan amount. Now it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3, without paying the loan amount, is trying to alienate the house property to respondent No.4 with a view to deprive the recovery of the loan amount advanced by him to respondent No.2. Hence, he seeks a direction to respondent No.1 not to register the house property to be alienated by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.4. No direction as prayed for by the petitioner can be granted. The petitioner by filing this writ petition is seeking to resolve a dispute between him and respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are private parties. If respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not repay the loan amount, his remedy is to approach the competent Civil Court, having jurisdiction, and certainly he cannot file writ petition and make use of the jurisdiction of this Court to settle private disputes by making respondent No.1, namely the Sub- Registrar, as a party to the writ petition, who has nothing to do with the money transaction between the petitioner and respondent No.2. The writ petition is not only misconceived, but is abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 25th April 2008 KSR/Nsr