IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6449 of 2008(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ PANKAJAM.P.K., AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.LATE KUNHIKANNAN, PAIKANDY, PALISON HOUSE, PERINGADI P.O., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE NEW MAHE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P.O.PERINGADI, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. KOTTAKUNIYIL RAJEEVAN, KOTTAKUNIYIL HOUSE, PERINGADI P.O., NEW MAHE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.6449 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent Panchayat to withdraw Ext.P5 building permit issued in favour of the second respondent on the reason that it is an imaginary path way which has been shown in the plan submitted by the party respondents on the basis of which Ext.P5 has been issued. The existence or otherwise of the path way and the rights of the party respondents over the path way are being adjudicated by a competent civil court in Ext.P1 suit. Therefore the petitioner prays for a declaration that Ext.P5 issued in favour of the second respondent during the pendency of the suit is of no consequence while adjudicating the dispute regarding the existence of the path way. In my opinion the apprehensions of the petitioner that the civil court will be influenced by the issuance of Ext.P5 permit while deciding Ext.P1 suit are not strongly founded. In the approved plan itself, it has been endorsed by WPC.No.6449/08 2 the Panchayat that the permit is being issued subject to the decision in Ext.P1 suit. Under these circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition directing the court which is in seizin of Ext.P1 not to be influenced by the issuance of Ext.P5 permit in favour of the second respondent since the same is issued during the pendency of the suit and also since the issues regarding ownership and possession over the immovable property are essentially within the domain of the civil court. It is needless to mention that Ext.P5 will be subject to the outcome of the civil suit. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.6449/08 2