ORDER The petitioner is calling in question the order dated 11-9-2009 which is impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. The petitioner has also sought for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner vide Annexure-C. 2. The petitioner claims that the property which, is the subject matter of this writ petition was allotted in favour of the third respondent from the Vishwa Bharathi Housing Co-operative Society Limited. Subsequently, the petitioner claims to have purchased the property from the third respondent under a sale deed dated 18-10-2007. Pursuant to such purchase, the petitioner has filed an application as at Annexure-C on 7-7-2008 seeking change of khatha to her name. The grievance however is that in the meanwhile, the second respondent is said to have filed a petition and the first respondent has exercised the power under Section 114-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and the khatha which existed in the name of the vendor of the petitioner viz., the third respondent herein has been set aside. The contention is that such order could not have been passed by the first respondent since the power could be exercised only within a period of three years and in the instant case it is beyond the said period. Further the petitioner has not been made party to the said proceedings and as such when the petitioner had already acquired title to the property as on the date of the impugned order, the petitioner was a necessary party. 3. The learned Counsel for the first respondent seeks to justify the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the first respondent contends that the order passed is based on the materials which were available before the authorities and therefore the order in any event cannot be found fault with. It is contended that since the second respondent had claimed right to the property and was before the authority and since the dispute inter se was between the second and third respondent, the same was considered and the order has been passed. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is seen at the outset that the petitioner herein was not a party to the said proceedings under Section 114-A of the Act. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is seen at the outset that the petitioner herein was not a party to the said proceedings under Section 114-A of the Act. The documents produced along with the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner in fact had purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 18-10-2007 and the impugned order is passed on 11-9-2009. In a normal circumstance, this fact alone was sufficient to set aside the order and to remand the matter to the authority to reconsider the matter afresh after providing opportunity to the petitioner. However, in the instant case, it is seen that the contesting parties are also litigating before the Civil Court in O.S. No. 25248 of 2009. The said suit is a suit for injunction instituted by the petitioner against the second respondent herein. Though the said suit is one for injunction, incidentally the right of the plaintiff as claimed in the suit to entitle her for injunction would have to be considered. Insofar as that aspect of the matter, for the purpose of retaining of the revenue entries, the finding to be rendered in the said suit would be sufficient though ultimately it may become necessary in the facts of the case with regard to declaration if such situation arises thereafter. 5. Therefore, in this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 11-9-2009 at this junction. However liberty is reserved to the petitioner herein to approach the first respondent after the suit in O.S. No. 25248 of 2009 is disposed of. Depending on the result of the suit, if the plaintiff succeeds in the said suit and if the petitioner approaches the first respondent, the same shall be considered as a review proceedings under Section 114-A and the matter shall be considered afresh keeping in view the observations that may be made by the Civil Court in the said suit. All contentions in that regard are left open to be urged before the Civil Court as well as the authority concerned. It is made clear that in the proceedings before the Civil Court, the khatha presently standing in the name of any of the parties shall not influence the Civil Court and the Civil Court shall render its own findings based on the other evidence that may be available before the Court. It is made clear that in the proceedings before the Civil Court, the khatha presently standing in the name of any of the parties shall not influence the Civil Court and the Civil Court shall render its own findings based on the other evidence that may be available before the Court. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of No order as to costs.