Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to challenge a judgment when other statutory remedies are available, especially when ongoing criminal proceedings exist regarding allegations of fraud.

JUDGMENT :

P.M.MANOJ, J.

The writ petition is preferred by third persons seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S. No.247/2013 of the First Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The question to be answered in the writ petition is whether the jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked to set aside the judgment on the alleged grounds of fraud and impersonation.

2. The writ petition is preferred challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2014 in O.S. No.247 of 2013 of the First Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner and her husband had been residing with their family in South Africa for 17 years at the time of filing the writ petition. She purchased 10.80 Ares of property in Old Survey No.1821/1 and Re-survey No.274/10 of Pangappara Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. This property was assigned to her and her husband by one P.Y. Thomas as per Ext.P1 dated 17.07.2006. Sri.P.Y. Thomas obtained the property from the deceased Bishop of Malankara Orthodox Suriyani Sabha, Geevarghese Mardiascoras Episcopa Thirumeni as per Ext.P2 dated 13.10.1983. The Bishop obtained the property from one Mr.Paul Thomas as per Ext.P3 dated 30.04.1980.

3. After the purchase of the property as per Ext.P1 the property tax and the encumbrance certificates were handed over by the assigner to the petitioner and her husband. Thereafter, the petitioner constructed a compound wall to secure the property, and they remained in South Africa as her husband was employed in Botswana, and the petitioners visited the property occasionally. Later, they were informed by a friend of her husband that a news item relating to their property was published in the Malayala Manorama daily dated 15.12.2010. The news item was that the first respondent had got someone to impersonate the deceased Bishop, and the present Bishop, Dr.Grabriel Mar Gregorius Metrapolita (2^nd respondent), had filed a complaint before the 3^rd respondent – DGP.

4. The complaint is with respect to the creation of the Ext.P7 document dated 31.03.2010, which is stated to be created by the first respondent for transferring the land owned by the petitioner as it is directly assigned by the assigner in Ext.P2, i.e. Late Bishop Geevarghese Mardiascoras Episcopa. The crucial aspect is that Bishop Geevarghese Mardiascoras Episcopa passed away on 23.07.1999. Under such circumstances, the police started an investigation and Ext.P8 Final Report was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kazhakkoottam, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal, on 10.07.2011 as CC No. 589/2011. In the Final Report the first respondent herein is the second accused. Later she was released on bail.

5. The officers involved in the alleged fraudulent transaction were also arrayed as witnesses in the FIR, and a Vigilance Inquiry was ordered against those officers. As a result, the 5^th respondent Director General of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau obtained sanction from the Government to proceed against the Government Officials.

6. While all these proceedings were in motion, the 1^st respondent approached the Sub Court and filed a Suit as OS No.247/2013 wherein the Late Bishop was the second defendant and the p