IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2951 of 2011(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. PONNAMMA K.N. D/O.V.K.NARAYANA PANICKER, AIKULATHU HOUSE, NEEDUMKAUNNAM P.O, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM. 2. ARUNKUMAR, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O PONNAMMA K.N. D/O.V.K.NARAYANA PANICKER, AIKULATHU HOUSE, NEEDUMKAUNNAM P.O, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM. 3. AJITH KUMAR, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.PONNAMMA K.N. D/O.V.K.NARAYANA PANICKER, AIKULATHU HOUSE, NEEDUMKAUNNAM PO, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SMT.JEENA JOSEPH SMT.GISA SUSAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. SUB REGISTRAR, THENGANA, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PAIPPADU, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM. 3. VENUNATHAN NAIR, S/O.LATE RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, MEPRASSERIL HOUSE, PALLICKACHIRA KAVALA P.O, PAIPPADU, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM. 4. CHELLAMMA, M/O.VENUNATHAN NAIR, MEPRASSERIL HOUSE, PALLICKACHIRA, KAVALA P.O, PAIPPADU, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM. WPC NO.2951/2011 -2- 5. SHEELA M.V., W/O.VENUNATHAN NAIR, S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, MEPRASSERIL HOUSE, PALLICKACIRA KAVALA P.O, PAIPPADU, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM. 6. AVINASH, AGED 9 YEARS, S/O.SHEELA M.V., MEPRASSERIL HOUSE, PALLICKACHIRAKAVALA P.O, PAIPPADU, KOTTAYAM. 7. VISHNU M.V, AGED 4 YEARS, S/O.SHEELA M.V. MEPRASSERIL HOUSE, PALLICKACHIRA KAVALA P.O, PAIPPADU, KOTTAYAM. (RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 ARE MINORS AND HENCE THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER, THE 5TH RESPONDENT) GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 2951 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The basic allegation contained in the writ petition is that the 4th respondent has executed Ext.P4 document in favour of respondents 5 to 7 in violation of Ext.P1 order and P3 judgment of this Court. Even if there is substance in what is contended, still, if the petitioners are aggrieved by any such conduct, the remedy available to the petitioners is to institute proceedings for violation of the directions contained in the order and judgment mentioned above. Further, if at all the petitioners have any further grievance against the party respondents regarding the execution of the documents, those grievance of the petitioners can only be resolved in a civil court and not in a writ petition. Therefore, writ petition is not the proper remedy that is available to the petitioners. In that view of the matter, I cannot entertain the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp