JUDGMENT : 1. Party/Parties are represented in the order of their name/names as printed above in the cause title. 2. The grievance of the petitioner, who claims to be an undivided joint owner of the premises in issue, is that the Private Respondent No.9, also an undivided joint owner, is making unauthorised construction at the premises in issue in violation of a clear order of injunction passed by the Learned Civil Court at Alipore in a suit for partition between the parties. 3. Taking this Court to the order dated the 14th of September, 2016 in Title Suit No. 56 of 2016, Mr. Bhattacharjee, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the parties to the suit in which the present Petitioner is the Plaintiff and the present Respondent No.9 is the Defendant, were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the Schedule property as on date in respect of its nature and character. The order of status quo has since been extended from time to time and, still is in force. 4. Mr. Bhattacharjee argues that this writ petition is maintainable since the petitioner/co-owner of the premises in issue has alleged unauthorised construction within the premises in issue by the Private Respondent Nos.9 and 10/the Defendants in violation of the Municipal law. 5. On behalf of the Private Respondent Nos. 9 & 10, Mr. Chowdhury, Learned Counsel submits that the first remedy of the petitioner was to approach the Civil Court. In fact, the petitioner had so approached the Civil Court but, decided not to press for hearing. 6. It is therefore argued that the present writ petition is not maintainable since the unauthorised construction/alleged violation has its roots, if at all, in the partition suit of which the petitioner being the plaintiff had the advantage of the carriage of proceedings. 7. Mr. Chatterjee, Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC), opposes the maintainability of the petition on similar grounds as advanced by Mr. 7. Mr. Chatterjee, Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC), opposes the maintainability of the petition on similar grounds as advanced by Mr. Chowdhury (supra) and, draws sustenance from the unreported authority of W.P. 9648 (W) of 2014 (Nemai Chandra Halder versus State of West Bengal & Ors.) of which the relevant portion is quoted below :- “Thus, when a comprehensive provision for redressal of the grievance of the decree-holder is prescribed in the code itself, we are of the view that in case the decree for permanent injunction is violated and/or threatened to be violated, the remedy of the decree holder lies before the Executing Court for seeking relief by way of enforcement of the decree for permanent injunction by following the mode as prescribed under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” 8. Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court is persuaded to accept the arguments of Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.9 and 10 for the KMC to hold that this writ petition is not maintainable. 9. Since Affidavits are not invited, allegations made are deemed to be denied. 10. WP No. 30219 (W) of 2017 stands accordingly dismissed. 11. Affidavit of Service filed in Court be retained with the record. 12. Urgent Photostat Certified Copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.