IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20006 of 2011(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ RAJESWARY, AGED 63 YEARS, D/O.VASUDEVAN, VILAYIL VEEDU, MELATTUMOOZHI, KARUMKUTTIKARA, ANAKUDI MURI, VAMANAPURAM VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.G.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENJARAMOODU, TRIVANDRUM-695607. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENJARAMOODU, TRIVANDRUM-695607. 3. SANTHA, AGED 61 YEARS, D/O.BHAGEERADHI, PULIYARAKONATHU VEEDU, POOVATHOOR, MELATTUMOOZHI, KARUMKUTTIKARA, ANAKUDI MURI, VAMANAPURAM VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, TRIVANDRUM-695561. 4. SARANGADHARAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN, LIZI MANDIRAM, THUMPODE, KALLARA, OF -DO--695561. 5. UNNI, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN, PANIKKAKUDI VEEDU,L MELATTUMOOZHI, KARUMKUTTIKARA NEDUMANGAD TALUK, TRIVANDRUM-695561. 6. SHIRLY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SASTHAMTHOPE VEEDU, OF -DO-. 7. SUNILKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O.LATE SUKUMARA PANICKER, OF -DO-. tss W.P.(C) NO. 20006/2011 8. ANILKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 0F -DO-. 9. AJAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OF -DO-. 10. SEETHAMONY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OF -DO-. 11. BEENAKUMARI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, D/O.SEETHAMONY OF -DO-. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R3 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA R6- R7 BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN, SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.20006/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 7.3.09 IN OS. 173/08. P2:- COPY OF THE DECREE DTD. 7.3.09 IN OS. 173/08. P3:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4;- COPY OF THE FIR. P5:- COPY OF THE SKETCH. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R6(a):- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRP. 604/1990 DTD. 7.4.1997. R6(b):- COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF THE TAX IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20006 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, a lady, seeking police protection for the enforcement of the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction and also for protection for her life from respondents 3 to 11. It is alleged that respondents 6 to 11 are not parties to the decree but they are acting at the behest of those who are parties to the decree. They have no right to object the execution of the decree. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 6 and 7. The contention raised therein is that respondents 6 and 7 have nothing to do with the decree. It is also contended that the allegations levelled against them in the writ petition are absolutely false. There is no threat from the part of respondents 6 and 7 to the life of the petitioner. 2. Learned Government Pleader on the basis of 2 W.P.(C) No.20006 of 2011 instructions submitted that, the police is yet to receive Ext.P3 complaint. Sri.G.Venugopal learned counsel for the petitioner however assailed before us that, Ext.P3 complaint was submitted and he relied on Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is only a copy of the complaint allegedly submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. No materials have been produced by the petitioner to show that Ext.P3 was submitted to the 2nd respondent. We heard counsel for the parties, namely, Sri.G.Venugopal learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.R.S.Kalkura and Sri.T.R.Harikumar learned counsel for the party respondents and learned Government Pleader Smt.C.M.Charisma. Sri.Kalkura learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5 submitted that the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction now sought to be executed by the Munsiff's court has not attained finality. The appeal A.S.No.25 of 2009 before the Sub Court, Nedumangad, is pending against that decree. He also submitted that between the parties a suit for partition as O.S.No.6 of 2011 is pending. This being the situation, this 3 W.P.(C) No.20006 of 2011 Court will be in justified in enforcing the decree. Sri.Harikumar submitted that the title relied on by the petitioner was set aside by this Court in C.R.P.No.604 of 1990 and the copy of the C.R.P. order is produced as Ext.R6 (a). Though Sri.Venugopal submitted that Ext.R6(a) does not pertains to the property which is the subject matter of the present case, we are convinced that certain dispute exists between the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7. 3. Two questions arise for decision by us, (1) whether we will be justified in issuing the police protection directions in respect of the property. The above question can be answered only in the negative as the issue is pending before the civil court. Coming to the 2nd question of granting protection for the life of the petitioner, we accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that Ext.P3 is yet to be received by the 2nd respondent Sub Inspector. We direct the petitioner to send another copy of Ext.P3 or a fresh complaint noticing grievances which the petitioner may be presently having against any of the party 4 W.P.(C) No.20006 of 2011 respondents by registered post with Acknowledgment due. On receiving such complaint, the 2nd respondent will conduct thorough enquiry into the complaint and take such action as is warranted, on the basis of the facts revealed in the enquiry. If in the enquiry it is revealed that the protection is to be granted to the life of the petitioner, then needless to say adequate protection will be rendered. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/