IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37237 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANNAMMA, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.JOY, PALAVILA VEEDU, ERATHU KULAKADE MURI, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KOLLAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA. 4. M.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, ROHINI VILASAM, ERATHU KULAKADE MURI, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. 5. VALSALAKUMARI, D/O.SARASWATHY AMMA, ROHINI VILASAM, ERATHU KULAKADE MURI, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. 6. SAROJINI AMMA, D/O.KARTHIYAYANI AMMA, MADHAVA SADHANAM ERATHU KULAKADE MURI, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. 7. MADHAVAN PILLAI, MADHAVA SADHANAM ERATHU KULAKADE MURI, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. GOVT. PLEADER SMT SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No. 37237/2008 ------------------------ Dated this the Ist day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT The allegation of the petitioner is that respondents 4 to 7 have trespassed into a purambokku pathway which according to the petitioner is the access that is available to her for the enjoyment of her property comprised in R.S.No.37/21 of Kalayapuram village in Kottarakkara Taluk. 2. The pleadings in this writ petition itself show that the aforesaid respondents have filed a civil suit as O.S.No.353/94 before the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara, in which the petitioner being the defendant, had filed counter claim. The suit and the counter claim were dismissed by the trial court as per Ext.P3 judgment and the appeals preferred by both sides are pending. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has filed Exts.P2,P4 and P5 complaints before the 2nd and 3rd respondents and in this writ petition the petitioner 2 alleges that there is inaction on the part of the aforesaid respondent on the aforesaid complaints. 3. Petitioner submits that the pendency of the Civil Suit is not a bar and therefore the aforesaid respondents should have initiated action on the complaints filed by her. 4. As already noticed, the petitioner had tried her luck before the Civil Court and was unsuccessful in getting a decree against respondents 4 to 7. Appeals filed by the petitioner and the plaintiffs in the suit are pending. It was while so the petitioner is trying to re-activate the issue before the respondents 1 and 2. The issue pending before the civil court and what is raised in the complaints being the same and as the parties are now covered by Ext.P3 judgment and in view of the pendency of the appeals before the appellate court, I am not inclined to find fault with the respondents in not taking action on the complaints. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ 3