IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 22241 of 2010(E) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. NIRMALA DEVI, D/O. SARADHAMANI, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT VALLASSERIPARAMBU, KAREEKKAD, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 2. SASIKUMAR, D/O. SARADHAMANI, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT VALLASERIPARAMBU, KAREEKKAD, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR -1. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION -680101. 3. SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION - 680101. 4. KUTTAN, S/O.PONNARASSERI APPUKUTTAN, KAKKASSERI DESOM, BRAHMAKULAM AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PIN-680104. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. R4 BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.22241 OF 2010: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 1331/99 DATED 24.9.1999 FILED BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD. EXT.P3.TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE IST PETITIONER DATED 6.10.2000 IN O.S.1331/99 BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD. EXT.P4.TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.3.2010 IN IA 2550/2009 IN AS 257/2009 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P5.TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 17.3.2010 IN WPC NO.8876 OF 2010 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P6.TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT WHICH WAS ACCIDENTALLY OMITTED TO BE MARKED BY THE TRIAL COURT AND WHICH WAS IGNORED BY ALL THE COURTS DATED 29-10-2008 IN OS 1331/1999. EXT.P7.TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN RSA 445/2010 DATED 3.6.2010 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P8.TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND THEIR MOTHER DATED 5.7.2010 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9.PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY THE REPORTER SHOWING THE POLICE DETAINING 73 YEAR OLD SARADHAMANI. EXT.P10.TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT SHOWING PHOTOGRAPH OF MOTHER OF THE PETITIONERS IN JANAYUGAM DAILY DATED 11.7.2010. K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.22241 of 2010-E ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following relief: “ to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 2 and 3 and their subordinates not to harass the petitioners and their families and not to interfere with the civil dispute between the petitioners and the 4th respondent.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows: Civil litigations are pending between petitioners, their mother and the 4th respondent. Two suits were filed praying for injunction. The suit filed by petitioners was dismissed. The suit filed by party respondent is decreed. Appeal was carried against the same. During pendency of the appeals Ext.P4 order was passed by the Ist appellate court directing the police to give protection for enjoyment of the property. It is the case of the petitioners that subsequently the appeal was disposed of against the petitioners. They WPC 22241/2010 -2- carried the matter in further second appeal. The second appeal was also dismissed and review petition is under contemplation. But, the complaint of the petitioners is that on the strength of Ext.P4 order and without having regard to the disposal of the main case namely the appeals the police is continuously interfering in the civil dispute between the parties. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the 4th respondent at whose instance Ext.P4 is passed and the learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader, would submit that police is interfering on the basis of the interim order, namely, Ext.P4. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent would submit that in view of the fact that the appeal itself has been disposed of after passing Ext.P4 order it may not be appropriate to insist on Ext.P4 order as the basis for the police interference in the matter. He would point out that the 4th respondent has filed a separate writ petition seeking police protection in the matter. In the light of the submissions, we direct that respondents 2 and 3 shall not interfere in the matter on the basis of Ext.P4 order. This will be without WPC 22241/2010 -3- prejudice to the right of the 4th respondent to work out his legal remedies. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE. MS