IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37198 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. XAVIER LAWRENCE, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.LAWRENCE,15/2026 B,BEACH ROAD,MOOLAMKUZHI, KOCHI-682 002. 2. A.G.SOMANATHAN,S/O.GUNAN,AGED 57 YEARS, 15/2026 B,BEACH ROAD,MOOLAMKUZHI, KOCHI-682 002. BY ADV. SRI.C.N.SAMEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI,KOCHI. 3. PRAMOD.K.S,S/O.SREEDHARAN, AGED 32 YEARS, KANNOTH PARAMBU,23/2016 B, KILIYAMPADAM HARIJAN COLONY,NEAR BEACH ROAD, KOCHI-2. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.37198 OF 2010(Y) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Main payer in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P12 and Ext.P13 notices and to direct the 2nd respondent not to proceed with Ext.P14 complaint, in view of the pendency of Ext.P11, the suit in O.S.No.362/2010, on the file of the Addl. Munsiff Court, Kochi. 2. Petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent and 2 others have filed O.S.No.362/2010 before the Munsiffs Court, seeking a mandatory injunction to the defendants in the suit including the petitioners to demolish a compound wall which allegedly blocks a pathway. Before the Civil Court, defendants entered appearance and the civil court is seized of the matter. It is stated that during the pendency of the suit the 3rd respondent and others have filed Ext.P14 complaint before the 2nd respondent raising various allegations. It is stated that taking cognizance of the said complaint the 2nd respondent has issued Exts.P12 and P13 notices. In this writ petition the main complaint raised is that notices were issued at a time when the Civil Court is seized of the WPC.No. 37198/2010 :2 : issue and therefore this court should interfere with the matter. 3. If as stated by the petitioners, the civil court is seized of the issue, it is not permissible for the 2nd respondent to initiate any proceedings. Therefore, if the petitioners have a case that the issue covered by Ext.P14 is the same as the one raised in O.S. No.362/2010, petitioners should have appeared before the 2nd respondent in response to Exts.P12 and P14, produced a copy of the plaint and written statement before the said authority and should have satisfied the said authority that the civil Court is seized of the issue. 4. Therefore I direct that it will be open to the petitioners to appear before the 2nd respondent, produce copy of the plaint and written statement in OS.No.362/2010 and contend that in view of the pendency of the suit, as the issue raised in Ext.P14 and the suit is one and the same, proceedings in Ext.P14 are misconceived. It is directed that if the petitioners adopt the above course, 2nd respondent will examine the matter and if the issue is covered as contended by the petitioners the 2nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders in the matter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 37198/2010 :3 :