APHC010167172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8728/2025 Between: Pandra Vani and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. BALAJI MEDAMALLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: 2 NV,J W.P.No.8728 of 2025 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following relief: “To pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring order of Refusal in Proceedings No.Refusal No.4/2025 dated 20.03.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent thereby refusing to register document of Sale Deed dated 19.03.2025 and keeping the same as pending document vide P.No.5/2025 in respect of the property admeasruign 125.625 square yards in Survey No.684/1 of Kodur Revenue Village and Post, Koduru Mandal, AnnamayyaDistrit, inspite of the same issue is being covered by repeated orders of this Hon’ble Court, as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and Rules framed there under and offends Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct Respondent Nos.2 & 3 to register and release the said Sale Deed forthwith.” 2. The challenge laid in this writ petition is to the proceedings in Refusal in Proceedings No.Refusal No.4/2025 dated 20.03.2025 issued by Respondent No.3 refusing to register the sale deed dated 19.03.2025 executed in favour of the petitioners by their vendor on the ground that the subject property is covered by the stay orders of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in CRPMP No.1546 of 2012 in CRP No.1147 of 2012. 3. Heard Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration. 4. Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ petition, further contended that neither the petitioners nor their vendor 3 NV,J W.P.No.8728 of 2025 is party to CRP No.1147 of 2012 on the file of this Court and therefore, the orders passed in the said Revision does not bind them and hence the ground on which the registering authority refused to register the document is untenable. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration justified the action of the registering authority in refusing to register the document. 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. Vide impugned proceedings, registration of the sale deed dated 20.03.2025 executed in favour of the petitioners by their vendors was refused. The reasons for refusal are as follows: “The document affects property in Survey Number 684/1 of Kodur Village, Kodur Gram panchayat. The property is covered by the injunction orders of the Hon’ble A.P. High Court in CRPMP No.1546 of 2012 in CRP No.1147 of 2012. Hence, registration of the document is refused as per S.O.219 of A.P. Registration Manual Part-II (as amended by G.O.Ms.No.620 Revenue (Regn.I) Department dated 28.09.2002 read with G.O.Ms.No.497 Revenue (Regn.I) Department dated 7.4.2003.” 4 NV,J W.P.No.8728 of 2025 8. It is a well established principle of law that an order of injunction passed in a suit would operate only against the parties to it. A co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.11560 of 2011 held as follows: “An order of injunction passed in a suit would operate only against the parties to it. Howsoever proximate or remote, a person may be connected to a party to proceedings before a Court, an order passed therein does not bind him, unless he is a party thereto.” 9. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the petitioners nor their vendor is a party to the proceedings in CRP No.1147 of 2012. Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.9139 of 2012 and 16921 of 2014 vide orders dated 02.04.2012 and 20.06.2014, while placing reliance on the orders in W.P.No.11560 of 2011, allowed the writ petitions directing the registering authorities to process the document in accordance with law, in case the petitioners or their vendor or his vendor’s vendor are not parties to the order in CRP No.1147 of 2012. The issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the orders passed in Writ Petition Nos. 9139 of 2012 and 16921 of 2014 and hence similar orders passed therein can be passed in this writ petition. 10. In the above view of the matter, in view of the orders passed in Writ Petition Nos. 9139 of 2012 and 16921 of 2014, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the Registering authorities to find out whether the petitioners, or their 5 NV,J W.P.No.8728 of 2025 vendor are parties to the order in CRP No.1147 of 2012 and in case they are not parties, the Registering authority shall process the document in accordance with law and release the same to the petitioners, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is also made clear that the registration so made shall not affect the rights of the parties to the revision nor shall it create rights in favour of any person except the parties to the document. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 12. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:03.04.2025 SP 6 NV,J W.P.No.8728 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8728/2025 Date:03.04.2025 W SP