IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16875 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------------- KRISHNA MOORTHY, AGED 67, S/O. RAMAN CHETIYAR, MAMAKSHI AMMAL KOIL STREET, ANAMALAI, POLLACHI TALUK, FROM VATTACHIRA, VADAVANNOOR VILLAGE, CHITTOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAMKODE. 3. BABY AMMAL, S/O. SOMASUNDARAM, VATTACHIRA, VADAVANNOOR VILLAGE, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT. 4. SINDHU, W/O. RAJAN, PORIKKARAN STREET, VADAVANNOOR VILLAGE, CHITOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 16875 OF 2008-H ----------------------------------------- Dated 6th June, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the owner of 1 acre and 85 cents of land. The respondents 3 and 4 attempted several rounds of litigations to establish their rights over that property. All those efforts became futile. Finally, the petitioner moved the civil court and obtained Ext.P1 judgment and Ext.P1 (a) decree against them. The party respondents and their men were restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the petitioner and from trespassing into it. Even thereafter, the respondents 3 and 4 are not ready to respect the petitioner's right over the property. When he went there with his workmen to do agricultural operations, he was prevented, threatened and driven back by the said respondents. So, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 petition before the police to take appropriate action against respondents 3 and 4. 2. A reading of Ext.P2 would show that the overt acts from the part WPC 16875/08 2 of respondents 3 and 4 amount to violation of Ext.P1(a) decree obtained by the petitioner. If the decree is violated, the remedy of the petitioner does not lie before the Police Station, but before the competent civil court. The police cannot be conferred power or jurisdiction to decide on the allegation of the petitioner that the judgment debtors have violated the decree obtained by him. In view of the above position, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/