IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31626 of 2011(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SUSEELAN,S/O.JANARDHANAN,VIPIN NIVAS, PERUMPUZHA,ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHAN LAL SRI.T.PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE TAHASILDAR,TALUK OFFICE,KOLLAM - 691 001. 2. THE TALUK SURVEYOR,TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM 691 001. 3. RAJU,S/O.KARUNAKARAN,PANDASSERIL VEEDU H.NO.388, WARD NO.17,MAKONE,KOTTAMKARA, CHANDANATHOPPE,KOLLAM 691 014. R1 & R2 BY Sr. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SD WPC NO. 31626/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1. THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED N0.1848/1996 DATED 28.03.1996 OF KILLIKOLLUR SUB REGISTRY. EXHIBIT P2. THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 23.03.2011 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTAMKARA TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3. THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.C3-57467/2011 DATED 07.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4. THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT O.S NO.715/2011 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM DATED 11.10.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE SD ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 31626 of 2011 C ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 28th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Inaction on Ext.P3 is what is complained of in this writ petition. Petitioner says that, on an application made by him for fixation of boundary, second respondent issued Ext.P3 notice and that, there has not been any further action in the matter. However. Ext.P4 is the plaint in O.S.No.715/2011 filed by the third respondent with the petitioner as the defendant, where the first prayer is for fixation of the very same boundary. In other words, what is sought for in this writ petition, viz., a direction to the second respondent to take action on Ext.P3, is the very same issue that is pending consideration of the civil court in Ext.P4. In such circumstances, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the matter when the civil court is seized of the issue. Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/28/11