JUDGMENT E S Indiresh, J. - Petitioner has sought for issue of writ of mandamus to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take legal action against the respondent No.3 who is constructing the building in contravention of the sanctioned plan issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also sought to demolish the illegal construction therein and in this regard, petitioner has made a representation dated 18.06.2020 as per Annexure-H and same is not considered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and such other reliefs. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of the schedule property bearing site No.826, HAL 3rd Stage, Bengaluru and she has constructed the house pursuant to the sanctioned plan issued by the competent authorities and she is paying tax to the 2nd respondent-BBMP. The petitioner has further stated that she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid property and respondent No.3 herein without complying with the sanctioned plan issued by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is making construction and is interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Accordingly she made a representation dated 18.06.2020 to respondent No.2. However, respondent No.2 has not considered the same and deliberately respondent Nos.1 and 2 are allowing the respondent No.3 to put up the construction illegally. 3. I have heard Smt. Revathy Adinath Narde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. K.N.Puttegowda, Senior Panel counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri. Nishanth A.V., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 4. Smt. Revathy Adinath Narde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.3018/2020 on the file of the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, against respondent No.3 herein and sought for relief of permanent and mandatory injunction. She further submitted that, the petitioner has filed application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC before the trial Court in the above suit and trial Court has granted interim order on 21.08.2020 restraining the respondent No.3 herein from interference with the petitioner s peaceful enjoyment of the property. Despite the same, respondent No.3 without complying the said order and in violation of the same is putting up construction on the eastern side of the schedule property. Despite the same, respondent No.3 without complying the said order and in violation of the same is putting up construction on the eastern side of the schedule property. Accordingly, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for allowing the writ petition with a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the representation produced at Annexure-H dated 18.06.2020 and also direct respondent No.3 to stop illegal construction on the eastern side of the schedule land in question. 5. Per contra, Sri K.N.Puttegowda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the representation dated 18.06.2020 made by the petitioner would be considered at the earliest if the same is not yet considered. He further submitted that in the event of any violation of sanctioned plan either by the petitioner or by respondent No.3, appropriate action would be taken by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in accordance with law. 6. Sri. Nishanth A.V., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has vehemently contended that the writ petition is not maintainable as the very same schedule property is the subject matter in the suit filed by the petitioner as well as the suit filed by respondent No.3 against the petitioner in O.S.No.3652/2020 and as such the writ petition is devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has suppressed the true facts before the Court. 7. He further submitted that respondent No.3 has made a complaint to respondent No.2 on 15.06.2020 which was prior to the representation dated 18.06.2020 made by the petitioner. However, respondent No.2 has passed an order pursuant to the complaint filed on 15.06.2020. In the meanwhile, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that against the order passed by respondent No.2 with regard to the demolition on 30.06.2020, the petitioner has approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal seeking for appropriate reliefs and stay is granted by the Tribunal. Learned counsel Sri Nishanth A.V. further submitted that respondent No3 has filed O.S.No.3562/2020 before the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on 12.08.2020 against the petitioner and the said suit is for mandatory injunction. Accordingly, he has submitted that writ petition is not maintainable as the very same schedule property is subject matter in the suit filed by the petitioner as well as the suit filed by respondent No.3. In that view of the matter, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Accordingly, he has submitted that writ petition is not maintainable as the very same schedule property is subject matter in the suit filed by the petitioner as well as the suit filed by respondent No.3. In that view of the matter, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties with regard to the lis, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of the schedule property as mentioned supra and the respondent No.3 is putting up the construction on the eastern side of the petitioner s site bearing No.826 and proposed building is causing interference with the peaceful possession of the petitioner s property. However, in this regard, the petitioner has made a representation dated 18.06.2020 to respondent No.2 herein complaining about the illegal construction putting up by respondent No.3 and also stated that the same is violation of the sanctioned plan. In view of these disputed question of facts, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has rightly submitted that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 would consider the same in accordance with law if no order is passed on the said representation made by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation dated 18.06.2020 vide Annexure H and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 9. It is needless to say that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.3018/2020 seeking relief of permanent and mandatory injunction against respondent No.3 which is pending consideration before the Civil Court. It is also to be noted that the respondent No.3 has filed O.S.No.3652/2020 before the City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru, against the petitioner and sought for relief of mandatory injunction. In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the legality or otherwise of the matter, this Court in exercise of discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is declined to entertain petition of disputed facts, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 18.06.2020 within two weeks from today and take appropriate action in accordance with law Ordered accordingly.