There is no judicial interference in civil suits under Article 226 unless procedural impropriety is evidenced.

JUDGMENT

2. Ext.P3 lawyer notice was issued at the instance of the 2 nd respondent on 27.09.2019; another lawyer notice Ext.P4 was issued on 28.09.2019 on behalf of the son of the 3 rd respondent/grand son of the 2 nd respondent; it was followed by Ext.P5 lawyer notice issued on 01.10.2019 by the 3 rd respondent and followed by Ext.P6 legal notice on 08.11.2019 from the daughter of the 2 nd respondent. It is stated that the 2 nd respondent has filed O.S.No.191/2019 before the Munsiff's court, Mannarkkad and 3 rd respondent has filed O.S. No. 7/2020 before the Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam, demanding compensation of Rs.3 lakhs and 2 lakhs respectively from the petitioner, all in respect of this incident raising fabricated charges. According to the petitioner, when the issue involves a criminal matter Munsiff's court should not have entertained the Original Suit.

3. The petitioner also alleges that courts are entertaining matters without considering the issue involved in it and the Original Suit filed against him should not have been entertained by the court because of which petitioner is harassed and his time, energy and money are being wasted for no good reason.

4. The writ petition is filed in the above context seeking the following reliefs:

“ i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other

writ order direction calling upon the respondent no. 1&4 to take string out and strict measures against respondent no: 2 and 3 for fabricating charges and mocking judiciary and for their unlawful acts causing snags in daily basis of the judiciary and bringing shame on judiciary.

ii. The Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue directions to respondent 4 to issue directions and guidelines to the subordinate judiciary to scrutinize plaints and other proceedings having connections with other pending matters in courts and also those that are vexation and frivolous.

iii. The Hon'ble may be pleased direct court respondent no.7 to investigate the matter and initiate legal proceeding against respondents no.2&3 for fabricating charges, misuse judicial machinery and mocking Indian constitution as well as amount to contempt of court.

iv. The Hon'ble court may order respondents 2&3 to pay adequate compensation of Rs.20 lakhs to the petitioner who has undergone tremendous mental agony, stress and time as well loss of money.

v. The Hon'ble court may initiate a regular machanism to monitor fake and fabricated charges against sincere people who seek for legal justice.

vi. And such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

5. I heard the petitioner, who appeared in person.

6. Grievance of the petitioner is against the harassment at the instance of the respondents 2 and 3 raising frivolous demands and frivolous suits whereas petitioner has only responded against the cruelty shown to the elephant. According to him the party respondents wants to vex him by filing frivolous suits in various courts.

7. It would appear that petitioner has been discharging the constitutional duties under Article 51A(g), as a responsible citizen to protect the interest of the animals at large.

8. However when Original Suits are filed, the Munsiff's court would have to proceed with it in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the same. It would be incumbent on the petitioner, who is a defendant in the suit to substantiate that it is a frivolous or a false case or that the respondents 2 and 3 have raised fabricated charges against the petitioner, by placing his pleadings in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Petitioner would be free to raise all his contentions before the said court and even raise his preliminary objection, if so advised.

9. In case petitioner requires investigation against the party respondents the petit