IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1317 of 2010(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAMANI DEVI, D/O.SUMATHI AMMA, SAI KRISHNA, KRISHNAPILLAI NAGAR, KANICHANCODE ROAD, NEYYATTINKARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE NEYYATTINKARA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, NEYYATTINKARA.P.O. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.1317 of 2010 (L) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 14th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Prayers sought in this writ petition are to quash Ext.P9 decision of the respondent and to direct the respondent not to make any construction over a private road, which is lying on the western side of the petitioner's property. 2. According to the petitioner, her husband, surrendered their right over the property to the Municipality by Ext.P3. But however, the surrender was withdrawn by Ext.P4. It is stated that despite Ext.P4, the respondent proceeded to widen the road and that seeking to restrain the respondent from proceeding with the widening of the road, O.S.No.17/2010 was filed before the Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara, a copy of the plaint is Ext.P7. In the suit Ext.P8 interim order of injunction was passed which is stated to be in force. 3. Despite all these, the Municipality has passed Ext.P9 resolution to tar the road in question. The petitioner states that if WP(C) No.1317/2010 -2- the proposal for tarring the road materialises, that will affect her privacy and cause inconvenience to her. It is also stated that the proposal of the Municipality is to spend huge amount of public money to help a private person. 4. From Ext.P7 copy of the plaint filed in O.S.No.17/2010, it is seen that the petitioner's husband is the first defendant and the Municipality is the 2nd defendant. Relief sought is to restrain the Municipality from doing anything including widening the present condition of the road. Along with the said plaint, an interlocutory application for injunction is filed, in which Ext.P8 interim order of injunction was granted. Therefore, it is evident that in respect of the very same cause of action, the petitioner is already before the Civil Court, and if she is unsatisfied with the interim order of injunction that is already passed, it is for the petitioner to seek its modification before the Munsiff Court itself or move the Appellate Court. Therefore, essentially, these are parallel proceedings, which is impermissible. Even otherwise, according to the Municipality, they have acted upon the surrender of the property, which is stated to have been WP(C) No.1317/2010 -3- withdrawn by the petitioner. Therefore, there again a disputed question of fact is involved, which cannot be resolved in a writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly closed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg