ORDER : 1. Shakespeare had famously said in his immortal creation ‘Romeo and Juliet’:- “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” 2. However, the issue raised in this writ petition is quite mundane, far removed from the realm of prose and poetry. 3. Petitioners are aggrieved by naming of their village as Rangchalia Kathabari instead of Kathabari. 4. According to the petitioners, Kathabari is a cadastral village comprising a part of revenue village Mazgaon in the district of Sonitpur, Assam as would be evident from the revenue records relating to settlement operation of 1934. It is stated that all along the village was known as Kathabari which would be evident from the electoral rolls and revenue records. However, a group of people migrated to the village from Rangchalia under Bihali constituency and settled down in Kathabari village. One person out of the said group later on became the village Headman, i.e. Gaonburah and from that time onwards, Gaonburah and the other persons started prefixing the name Rangchaliato the name Kathabari, thus referring to the village as Rangchalia Kathabari. Even election department also changed the name of the village Kathabarito Rangchalia Kathabariin the 1993 electoral rolls. 5. Though a Civil Suit was instituted for restoration of the original name of the village as Kathabari, the same was dismissed. First Appeal as well as the Second Appeal preferred by the plaintiffs were also dismissed. It is stated that petitioners were not plaintiffs in the suit and appellants in the related appeals. Therefore, the said decisions would not be binding on the petitioners. Petitioners have referred to a number of documents mentioned in paragraph11 of the writ petition in support of the contention that their village was always known as Kathabari and not Rangchalia Kathabari. It is with the above grievance that the present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents, more particularly, respondent No.2, i.e., State of Assam not to use the word Rangchalia before the word Kathabari while referring to the village Kathabari under Sootea Assembly Constituency and also for correction of all records and voters lists by removing the word Rangchalia. 6. By order dated 02.04.2018, this Court had issued notice and passed an order of statusquo with respect to the name of the village Kathabari. 7. 6. By order dated 02.04.2018, this Court had issued notice and passed an order of statusquo with respect to the name of the village Kathabari. 7. Respondent No.6, i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur at Tezpur has filed an affidavit stating that as per report of the Circle Officer, Naduar dated 21.06.2018, Kathabariis not a revenue village. It is one of the 9 hamlets which constitutes the revenue village of Mazgaon and Uparkuri part. As per the said report, fact of pre-existence of the name Kathabari prior to independence is not known. Since 1966, Kathabari has been enlisted in the voters list under Sootea constituency. As per this affidavit, the word Rangchaliahas not been used in any Government document or record. 8. Respondent No.3, i.e., Chief Electoral Officer, Assam in his affidavit has contended that the writ petition is barred by the principle of resjudicata. Issue raised in the writ petition has already been adjudicated by a civil court of competent jurisdiction by declining to pass any decree that the village should be known only by the name Kathabari without the prefix Rangchalia. The said decision of the civil court has been affirmed in appeal and thereafter in second appeal. It is stated that since 1959 onwards, the name Rangchalia Kathabari had appeared in the voters list of No.75 Sootea Legislative Assembly Constituency. 9. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties are on pleaded lines. Therefore, a detailed reference to the submissions made is considered not necessary. However, submissions so made have received the due consideration of the Court. 10. Materials placed before the Court reveal that Kathabari Gaon Unnayan Samttiee as the plaintiff had instituted Title Suit No.45/1997 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Tezpur seeking a decree that Kathabari village should only be known as Kathabari village without use of the prefix Rangchalia. The suit was contested amongst others by the Chief Electoral Officer, Assam, Shri Ramen Baruah, Secretary of Rangchalia Kathabari Gaon Unnayan Samittee; and Shri Tridib Baruah, President of the said Samittee. On the basis of the pleadings, learned trial Court had framed amongst others the following issue:- Whether the name of the village in question in the Suit was Kathabari? 11. A related issue framed was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction. 12. These two issues were considered together. On the basis of the pleadings, learned trial Court had framed amongst others the following issue:- Whether the name of the village in question in the Suit was Kathabari? 11. A related issue framed was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction. 12. These two issues were considered together. The question before the civil court was whether the name of the village was Kathabariand not Rangchalia Kathabari. Learned trial Court after due consideration answered both the issues against the plaintiff and thereafter dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff by the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2000. 13. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 20.11.2000, plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No.03/2001. By the judgment and order dated 26.05.2003, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonitpur, Tezpur dismissed the said appeal by holding that no mandatory injunction could be granted in favour of the appellant (plaintiff) as prayed for. 14. Second Appeal filed by the plaintiff before this Court being RSA No.156/2003 was dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 21.04.2015. 15. From the above, what is evident is that the issue raised in the writ petition was substantially an issue in Title Suit No.45/1997 and the issue was answered against the plaintiff. The same relief has now been sought for in the present writ proceeding by taking the plea that petitioners were not members of the Kathabari Gaon Unnayan Samttiee which was the plaintiff in the suit. I am afraid; such contention can be permitted by the Court. Since the civil court had declined to accede to the prayer of the plaintiff after due consideration of the evidence on record, it is not possible for the writ Court to render a contrary finding, that too, on facts. 16. That apart, petitioners have not been able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Court in what manner their rights have been violated or in what manner they have been prejudiced by use of the prefix Rangchalia before the name Kathabari while referring to their village. Every grievance, howsoever bonafide or genuine it may be, cannot be redressed by the Courts unless the grievance is capable of being judicially adjudicated upon. Judicial process is not the answer to every grievance which the petitioners perceive to be in the interest of the society. 17. Every grievance, howsoever bonafide or genuine it may be, cannot be redressed by the Courts unless the grievance is capable of being judicially adjudicated upon. Judicial process is not the answer to every grievance which the petitioners perceive to be in the interest of the society. 17. In that view of the matter, Court finds no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Status-quoorder passed earlier stands vacated.