ORDER : 1. Prayer sought in the writ petition reads as under: “.......to issue an appropriate writ or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents No. 2 and 3 in listing the schedule property i.e. entire land to an extent of Ac. 15.18 gts. situated in Sy. No. 150 of Narsingi Village, R.R. District in prohibitory list or as Court dispute in Dharani Portal pursuant to the representation dated 04.05.2021 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents No. 2 and 3 forthwith list the property i.e. entire land to an extent of Ac. 15.18 gts. situated in Sy. No. 150 of Narsingi Village, R.R. District in prohibitory list and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri. Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. According to petitioner, Acs. 15.18 guntas in Survey No. 150 of Narsingi Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was jointly purchased by way of registered sale deeds dated 23.03.2013, 30.01.2013, 18.04.2013, 08.04.2013 and 08.05.2013. In terms of the joint purchase made, petitioner is entitled to share of Acs. 3.34 guntas of land. Without dividing the individual shares and demarcating the individual extents of land, the other joint purchasers started alienating the land, creating third party interest and affecting the right of petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for petitioner points out that several sale deeds are executed without the consent of the petitioner and on a closer look at the schedule of each of the sale deeds placed on record, it shows that the boundaries described are same. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not possible to have same boundaries for different extents of land even if the survey number is same. By this manner, the other shareholders are creating further litigation and preventing the petitioner from enjoying the fruits of the purchase made by him in the year 2013. 5. Aggrieved by their illegal actions and undertaking sale of joint property without his consent, petitioner instituted O.S. No. 1124 of 2018 along with another person in the Court of III Additional District Judge at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. The plaintiffs prayed to allot Acs. 4.09 guntas out of Acs. 5. Aggrieved by their illegal actions and undertaking sale of joint property without his consent, petitioner instituted O.S. No. 1124 of 2018 along with another person in the Court of III Additional District Judge at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. The plaintiffs prayed to allot Acs. 4.09 guntas out of Acs. 15.18 guntas as their share and to allot remaining Acs. 11.09 guntas as the share of defendant Nos. 1 to 49 and to allot the same to defendant Nos. 89 to 92, 100, 102, 103, 104, 107 to 156, as the purchasers. Plaintiffs also prayed to appoint Advocate Commissioner to allot the respective shares. Plaintiffs also filed interlocutory application praying to grant an injunction restraining the defendants from creating third party interest. It appears, the application is pending at the stage of service of notice on all the defendants/respondents. 6. While so, petitioner makes a representation on 04.05.2021 to the District Collector - 2nd respondent, and the Sub-Registrar - 3rd respondent, stating that as there is civil dispute pending on apportionment of respective shares of joint purchasers, the property should be kept in prohibited list of properties and should not entertain deeds of conveyance or creation of party interest in any other manner pending disposal of the suit. Alleging inaction, this writ petition is filed. 7. In other words, the claim of the petitioner is, until the suit is decided, the transactions should not be permitted in the subject land which is subject matter of pending suit even though no injunction is granted by the trial Court. 8. Ordinarily, whenever a document is presented for registration in compliance of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act 1908’) and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the registering authority has to receive, process, register and release the document. He may refuse to receive/register, if the property in issue, on which registration is sought, is included in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Act, 1908. He may also refuse to register the document if some litigation is pending and civil Court or High Court passed interlocutory order affecting the transactions in the concerned land. He can also refuse to register a document if the document is not in compliance with the provisions of Rule 26 of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 and if any objections are raised as per Rule 58. 9. He can also refuse to register a document if the document is not in compliance with the provisions of Rule 26 of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 and if any objections are raised as per Rule 58. 9. Rule 26 [Rule 26 (i)(b) of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908: Rule 26. (i) Every document shall, before acceptance for registration, be examined by the Registering Officer to ensure that all the requirements prescribed in the Act and in these rules have been complied with, for instance: (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) that the person is entitled to present it (Sections 32 and 40)] of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 requires the Registering Authority to examine the document presented for registration to ensure that all the requirements prescribed in the Act and the Rules are complied with and list out instances referable to various sections. According to this provision, the registering authority can verify whether a person, who executed the document and presented before him, is entitled to present himself and execute the document affecting a property. This provision is referable to Sections 32 and 40 of the Act 1908. As per Section 32 of the Act, 1908, the executant/representative of the document should be physically present. 10. Rule 58 though couched in a negative terms, but also requires the registering authority to consider objections raised on any other ground mentioned in the Rule. 11. This being the statutory environment in which the registering authority should act when a document is presented for registration, going by the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules made there under, it is seen the Act, 1908 and the Rules are silent on the course to be adopted by the Registering Authority if litigation is pending on the landed property on which a document is presented before him for registration. To fill the gaps in the statutory provisions and to give effect to the intendment of the scheme of the Act or the Rules, Government notified Standing Orders to guide the Registering Authority. To fill the gaps in the statutory provisions and to give effect to the intendment of the scheme of the Act or the Rules, Government notified Standing Orders to guide the Registering Authority. The Standing Order 219(b) [S.O. 219 - An order restraining a person from alienating certain property does not operate as a prohibition to the registering officer against the registration of a document executed by such person effecting such property and (b) If the Andhra Pradesh High Court or any other Civil Court restrains a person from alienating a property and if such orders are brought to the notice of the Registering Officer or served on the Registering Officer, the Registering Officer is estopped from going ahead with the Registration.] requires the Registering Authority to refuse to register a document for registration if High Court or any other civil Court restrained a person from alienating the property and such order is brought to the notice of the registering officer. In addition the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps also issued circular instructions to guide the registering officer. 12. Thus, the registering authority can be injuncted from entertaining a deed of conveyance or any other document affecting right/interest in a property only if an injunction order by a civil Court or an order of this Court is in operation imposing restraint on alienation or creating third party interest on a property. As a corollary, mere pendency of an original suit/appellate suit or case before this Court is not a ground to injunct. 13. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to prosecute the pending suit and the interlocutory application stated to have been filed in that suit. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.