JUDGMENT :

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

1. On the consent given by either side, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned Order of the 3rd Respondent, dated 21.2.2020 and for a consequential direction to the 3rd Respondent to register and release the document submitted by the Petitioner-Sangam with respect to the subject property.

3. The case of the Petitioner-Sangam is that they are the Owners of the subject property and they purchased the property for the purpose of constructing a Marriage Hall. After the purchase of the property, the Petitioner-Sangam wanted to alienate a portion of the property and a Sale Deed was executed on 10.7.2020. When the same was presented before the 3rd Respondent, the 3rd Respondent had rejected the registration of the document based on the opinion given by the Government Advocate and the 3rd Respondent insisted that the Petitioner must get appropriate permission from the Civil Court in which O.S. No. 48 of 2019 is pending. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court.

4. It is seen from records that the 5th Respondent had earlier approached this Court and filed W.P. No. 4190 of 2020. In the said Writ Petition, he had sought for a direction to the 3rd Respondent to consider his representation and not to register any document pertaining to the properties which, is a subject matter of dispute in O.S. No. 48 of 2019. This Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn at the time of admission on 21.2.2020. Thereafter, the matter was posted under the caption for Clarification on 27.7.2020. The following Order was passed on that day:

"2. The Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted to the Petitioner to file an Application in O.S. No. 48 of 2019 before the District Court, Erode, seeking restraint of alienation of the property in that Suit without prior permission of that Court as required under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, during its pendency. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that Mr. M. Tamizharasan, learned Additional Government Pleader, who had appeared for the First to Third Respondents during that hearing on 21.2.2020, had produced the Letter No. Na.Ka. No. 19/2020, dated 21.2.2020 from the Sub-Registrar, Avalpoondurai informing that no document relating to the property in respect of the aforesaid Suit would be registered without prior permission of that Court, though the said fact has not been recorded in the Order passed by this Court. It is borne out from the record that such Letter, dated 21.2.2020 had been produced before this Court and the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has been then furnished a copy of the same. The grievance is now sought to be ventilated by the Petitioner that despite the aforesaid Letter produced before this Court, a document has presented for registration relating to that property.

3. Mr. T.M. Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First to Third Respondents, on instructions, states that though a document has been presented for registration relating to that property, it has not yet been registered awaiting legal opinion, and that he would suitably advice that the document shall not be registered without permission of the Civil Court, where the Suit relating to that property is pending. It would suffice to place the aforesaid statement on record and nothing remains for further consideration in the matter."

5. It is pursuant to the above Order, the 3rd Respondent has directed the Petitioner to get the permission of the Civil Court before presenting any document for registration.

6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Sangam submitted that the Suit was filed by the 5th Respondent and if the 5th Respondent wanted to restrain any one from alienating the property, he has to file an appropriate Application before the Court and seek for an Interim Order. The 5th Respondent cannot be allowed to site the