statement filed by the Municipality is recorded and that having regard to the statements contained therein, the matter covered by Ext.P3 provisional order should finalised after hearing necessary parties. It is obvious that pursuant Ext.P5, the Municipality did conduct an enquiry and direct the petitioner to produce documents. Though the petitioner claims to have produced documents, nothing is placed on record to show that the petitioner submitted the survey sketch which was called for by the Municipality. Ext.P6 order followed by Ext.P7 was passed pursuant to Ext.P5 and the petitioner cannot successfully contend that he had no information at all regarding this. Whatever that be, if the petitioner felt that Ext.P5 order was passed in violation of the directions of this court in Ext.P5, he should have invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this court and could have effectively compelled the Municipality to comply with the directions in Ext.P5. Having considered rival submissions addressed at the Bar and having scanned the documents placed on record, I feel that in substance the dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent is over a portion of the property lying within the compound wall of the 3rd respondent-Church. Being a purely civil dispute, the petitioner has to seek settlement of that dispute by approaching a competent civil court.
