APHC010590972024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 30911/2024 Between: Chappidi Suresh Babu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHILUKURI KARTHIK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in refusing to register the sale deed dated 19.11.2024 bearing P.No.10 of 2024 vide Progs. No: Refusal No.08/2024, dated 20.11.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to provisions of Registration Act, 1908 and Rules made there under violative of principles of Natural Justice contrary to the law laid down by this Honble Court and consequently set aside the Progs. No. Refusal No. 08/2024, dated 20.11.2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent by directing the 3rd Respondent to receive register and release the sale deed dated 19.11.2024 bearing P.No.10 of 2024 and to pass such other order or orders...” 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings in Progs. No. Refusal No. 08/2024, dated 20.11.2024, issued by the 3rd Respondent, refusing to register the sale deed dated 19.11.2024, executed in favor of the petitioner by his vendor. The refusal is based on the ground that the subject property is covered by stay orders issued by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in CRMP No. 1546 of 2012 in CRP No. 1147 of 2012. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that neither the petitioner nor his vendor is party to the 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. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, justified the action of the registering authority in refusing to register the document. 5. It is well established principle of 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” 6. It is specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that 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 similar writ petition directing the registering authorities to process the document in accordance with law, in case the petitioner or his 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 the writ petition Nos.9139 of 2012 and 16921 of 2014 and hence similar orders passed therein can be passed in this writ petition. 7. 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 by directing the Registering authorities to find out whether the petitioner or his vendor are parties to the order in CRP No.1147 of 2012 and in case if they are not parties, the Registering authority shall process the document in accordance with law and release the same to the petitioner, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of the receipt of the 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. 8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ______________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 03.03.2025 klk 150 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.30911 of 2024 03.03.2025 kkllkk