IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8876 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------- AS.257/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR ............................................ PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. SARADHAMANI,W/O.ALLIPPARA SARATH CHANDRAN, VALLASSERRY PARAMBU,KAREKKAD DESOM, GURUVAYOOR AMSOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 2. NIRMALA DEVI, W/O.THANDASSERRY RADHAKRISHNAN & D/O.ALLIPPARA SARATH CHANDRAN, VALLASSERRY PARAMBU, KARAKKAD DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 3. JAYARAJAN, S/O.ALLIPPARA SARATH CHANDRAN DO. DO. DO. 4. SASIKUMAR, S/O.ALLIPPARA SARATH CHANDRAN DO. DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA SRI.R.THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- KUTTAN,S/O.PONNASSERRY APPUKUTTAN, KAKKASSERRY DESOM, BRAHMAKULAM AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sou. P. BHAVADASAN, J -------------------------- W.P.(C).No.8876 OF 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T This is a petition, under Article 227 of Constitution of India, whereby the legality of Ext.P5 is challenged. Two suits namely 1331/99 and O.S.320/2000 were disposed of by common judgment. O.S.1331/99 was decreed and O.S.320/2000 was dismissed. 2. The defendants in O.S.1331/09 assailed decree before the District Court in A.S.257/09. During the pendancy of the appeal, I.A.2550/09 was filed before the appellate court, copy of which is produced as Ext.P4. They sought for police protection to carry out agricultural operations. The lower court passed an order in the following terms: “The C.I. Of police, Guruvayoor is directed to give necessary police aid to the petitioner for enabling him to enjoy the plaint schedule property and to cultivate the same and to take yield from the same”. WPC.8876/10 2 3. The petitioner's have a case that order on Ext.P4 petition was passed without giving them an opportunity to substantiate their claim made in the objection. 4. One must notice that the court below observed that there was no objection from the side of the petitioner. The petitioners have a case that time was not given to file objection and they were not heard. If that be so, their remedy lies elsewhere. This writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to petitioners to take such steps in accordance with law. The impugned order is kept in abeyance for a period of ten days. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. sou.