IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3471 of 2008(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- LEELA PRASANNAKUMARI, AGED 41 YEARS, PUBLIC SERVANT, MOHANA SADANAM, PADINJATTINKARA VELIYAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.VASUDEVAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, S.P. OFFICE, KOLLAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EZHUKONE. 3. DEVAKY AMMA PONNAMMA, KIZHAKKEVILA MELATHIL VEEDU, PADINJATTINKARA VELIYAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA VILLAGE. 4. SURENDRAN PILLAI, S/O.GOVINDAN PILLAI DO. DO. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO. 3471 OF 2008-L -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: The petitioner owns ten cents of land in Sy.No.431/9 of Veliyam Village. He purchased the said property in 1985. Respondents 3 and 4 were desirous of purchasing that property. For having purchased the said property, respondents 3 and 4 were harbouring ill feelings towards the petitioner and they were trying to trespass into the property. So, the petitioner moved the civil court and obtained Ext.P2 judgment against them. The said judgment was affirmed by the appellate court as evidenced by Ext.P3 appellate judgment. Though a second appeal is filed before this Court with a petition to condone delay, the said petition is not so far heard. Respondents 3 and 4 are not respecting the judgments of the Munsiff Court and the District Court. Therefore, the petitioner moved Ext.P4 petition before the Police. The prayer in Ext.P4 petition reads as follows: “Hence, it is humbly prayed that necessary police assistance may be provided to the petitioner to enforce the decrees of the trial WPC.NO.3471/2008 . 2 court and appellate court. Otherwise the petitioner will suffer irreparable injury and loss”. Thereafter this writ petition is filed. The prayers in the writ petition are the following: “(a) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction to respondents 1 and 2. (b) Render adequate and sufficient protection to enjoy extent of 11 cents of property in Sy.No.431/5 of veliyam village in Kottarakara Taluk. © Enjoy the property for plucking coconuts and enjoy the property without any hindrance or objection from respondents 3 and 4. (d) Direct respondents 3 and 4 not to create any objection to the enjoyment of the property by the petitioner without any objection from respondents 3 and 4.” 2. The petitioner wants the help of the police to enforce the decrees of the civil court and the appellate court. For that remedy, the petitioner has to move the execution court and not to approach the police. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable in the light of the prayer in Ext.P4 as also the prayers in the writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and her right to move the competent WPC.NO.3471/2008 . 3 civil court for appropriate reliefs. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR , JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl