IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23381 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SAJU THOMAS, S/O.LATE THOMAS, KARAKKATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, KORUTHODU.P.O, ERUMELY. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE STATION. 2. K.T.JOSEPH, S/O.LATE THOMAS, KARAKKATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, KORUTHODU.P.O, ERUMELY. 3. K.T.DEVASSYA, S/O.LATE THOMAS, KARAKKATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, KORUTHODU.P.O, ERUMELY. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.23381 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner has been assigned an extent of 55 ares of land planted with rubber by his father. His brothers who are respondents 2 and 3 were not happy with that assignment. They have already moved the civil court for cancelling that deed. In that suit, they have got Exhibit P2 interim injunction order against the petitioner restraining him from committing any waste in that property. The petitioner submits, when he tried to do rubber tapping in that estate, his brothers obstructed. Tapping of rubber trees cannot be treated as commission of any waste. So, he moved the Munsiff Court, Kanjirappally and obtained Exhibit P3 interim injunction against the said respondents restraining them from committing any waste or interfering with the possession of the petitioner of the plaint schedule property. After obtaining that interim order when the petitioner went there to do the tapping, again his brothers obstructed. The petitioner approached the police by filing Exhibit P4 representation. Alleging that the police did not extend any help, this writ petition is filed. W.P.(C)No.23381/08 -2- 2. There is long line of decision of this Court starting from the decision of Subramonian Poty, J. (as His Lordship then was) in Thomas v. Superintendent of Police (1980 KLT 151) and the recent Division Bench decision of this Court in Sadananda Bai T.V. v. C.M.Ravi & Others (2008(3) KHC 76) that the police station is not the proper place to appraise about the violation of the orders of the civil court and for seeking consequential remedies. Accordingly, the Writ petition fails and 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. dsn