1 APHC010065422025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD IA 2 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO: 3448 OF 2025 Between: 1. VENKATESWARA THEATRE, VINUKONDA, PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, (A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REGISTRATION NO. 1564/1988) REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, ALLU VENKAT RAMAN S/O. LATE SIVARAMAIAH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (REGISTRATION AND STAMPS), SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, V. SQUARE BUILDING, KSR PARK ROAD, WARD NO.2, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 522501. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, NARSARAOPETA, PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE SUB REGISTRAR, REGISTRATION AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT, VINUKONDA, PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA 2 PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): May be pleased to Review the order dated: 28.03.2025 in W.PNo.3448 of 2025 before the Hon’ble Single Judge, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following ORAL ORDER IN IA.NO.02 OF 2025: Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner (appearing through online) and Sri J. Dileep Kumar, Ld. Government Pleader for Respondents. 2. The present Review Petition No.02 of 2025 in W.P.No.3448 of 2025 is filed seeking review of the Order. 3. Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner appearing online would submit that the Order passed by this Court dated 28.03.2025 in W.P.No.3448 of 2025 would not help the Writ Petitioner inasmuch as the Registrar is not likely to consider the Memo issued by the Respondent No.2 on 14.05.2022. He would submit that the Memo on which the Registrar was relying on dated 01.12.2011 had been set-aside by this Court, despite which the Registrar is ‘likely’ to rely on the same Memo and reject the Application. 4. Sri J. Dileep Kumar, Ld. Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the present Review Petition is misconceived inasmuch as the Petitioner had never approached the registration Authorities and submitted any document before the registration Authority for registration. He would submit that the Petitioner ought to have submitted the document namely the Partnership Reconstitution Deed for registration along with the other material 3 documents, in compliance with the Order of this Court dated 28.03.2025 in W.P.No. 3448 of 2025. The Sub-Registrar/Registrar would have been bound to consider the same and pass a Speaking Order. He would submit that without making such an attempt, the Petitioner has filed the present Review Petition seeking review on an imaginary apprehension that the Registrar/Sub- Registrar is ‘likely’ to decline the registration of Partnership Recognition Deed by placing reliance on the Memo dated 01.12.2011. He would submit that instead of seeking review before this Court, the Petitioner ought to have submitted the material including the Memo dated 14.05.2022 issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps Director, along with the Application for registration of Partnership Reconstitution Deed along with the Order passed by this Court in W.P. No.975 of 2023 dated 18.01.2023 and also the Order of this Court dated 08.12.2021 in W.P.No.27310 of 2021. 5. Having considered the above facts, this Court is in agreement with the submissions made by Sri J. Dileep Kumar, Ld. Government Pleader for Revenue. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the present Review Petition is not only devoid of any merit but also misconceived inasmuch as the Petitioner ought to have approached the concerned Authority (Registrar/ Sub- Registrar) and allow the Authority to pass a Speaking Order on merit. 6. Needless to state that that Petitioner is always at liberty to place on record the Memo dated 14.05.2022 and the Orders passed by this Court in the above mentioned two Writ Petitions. 7. Accordingly, this Review Petition is dismissed. While dismissing the present Review Petition the Writ Petitioner/Review Petitioner is directed to approach the Sub-Registrar, Vinukonda and submit the Partnership Reconstitution Deed along with the other material/ documents referred hereinabove within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this Order on the web-site of this Court. 4 8. There shall be a further direction to the Sub-Registrar, Vinukonda to consider the documents produced before him and pass a Speaking Order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of the documents. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 31.10.2025 Mnr 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD IA 2 OF 2025 (REVIEW PETITION) IN WRIT PETITION NO: 3448 OF 2025 Dt: 31.10.2025 Mnr