( 1 ) THE appellants are aggrieved by the order of the learned single judge dismissing the writ petition wherein they had sought for a writ of certiorari quashing the entire proceedings in r. a. no. 3 of 1992-93 on the file of the district registrar Sri g. r. swamy, urban district, gandhinagar, bangalore, including his order dated 25-5-1993 (annexure-y) rejecting the appellants' application for stay of those proceedings till the final disposal of the suit in o. s. 122 of 1992 pending on the file of the principal civil judge, Bangalore district, Bangalore and the order dated 22-7-1993 directing the examination of the witnesses on 28-7-1993 and for a writ of prohibition restraining the second respondent district registrar from proceeding further with the above appeal pending before him.

( 2 ) SOME of the facts giving rise to the writ petition are ashereunder, the first respondent who claims to have purchased certain properties from the first appellant under a sale deed dated 16-2-1992 allegedly executed by the first appellant, presented it before the sub-registrar, kengeri on 7-3-1992 for registration. On that day on an application purporting to have made by the first appellant, the sub-registrar, gandhinagar, was appointed as commissioner to visit the first appellant at hotel ashoka where she was staying and to examine her regarding the execution of the document. The sub-registrar, gandhinagar, by his report dated 18-7-1992 informed the sub-registrar, kengeri, that though he went to hotel ashoka on 7-3-1992 itself, "the execution proceedings could not be completed" as the first appellant did not appear before him. On 11-8-1992 the first respondent filed an application under section 36 of the indian registration act ('the act' for short) seeking issue of summons to the first appellant to appear before the sub-registrar to admit the execution of the documents. No order appears to have been passed on this application. In the meanwhile on 19-6-1992 the first respondent filed a suit in o. s. 122 of 1992 against the appellants for declaration that the sale deed dated 16-2-1992 executed by the first appellant in his favour is valid and binding on her and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants either from alienating the schedule property or from interfering with his possession of the suit property. In that suit the appellants denied the execution of the sale deed by the first appellant and made allegations of fraud and undue influence against the first respondent and another devdas.

( 3 ) ON 30-7-1992 the sub-registrar passed an order refusingregistration under rule 171 (viii) of the Karnataka registration Rules ('the rules' for short) read with section 34 of the act on the ground that the executant failed to appear within the prescribed time limit. The first respondent filed an appeal against that order of the sub-registrar under section 72 of the act before the second respondent-district registrar. During the pendency of that appeal the appellants made an application before the district registrar for either dismissing the appeal or staying further proceedings in the appeal till the final disposal of the suit o. s. 122 of 1992 which had been filed by the first respondent on the basis of the very sale deed, as the question whether the first appellant had executed the sale deed was an issue to be decided in the suit. The first respondent also filed an application before the district registrar seeking permission to amend the memorandum of appeal by inserting the words "read with sections 73 and 74" after the words "section 72". In the affidavit filed along with that application the first respondent stated that the first appellant had not admitted the execution of the sale deed in response to the application filed by him, that she had also not appeared before the commissioner appointed at her request for the purpose of registration and that as such it was necessary to bring the appeal even under sections