IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20514 of 2010(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- NAVAS.M.S, S/O.SAINALABDEEN, AGED 34 YEARS, M.V.HOUSE, T/C 39/1331, CHALA P.O, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE CITY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FORT CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ABDUL JALEEL, S/O.P.SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 34 YEARS, BISMI NIVAS, T.B.JUNCTION, NEAR MOSQUE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. FOR R3 SRI.G.P.SHINOD FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.20514 of 2010 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1.TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 2.11.2006. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR RS.5 LAKHS DATED 11.11.2009 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3.TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 12.4.2010 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4.TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.6.2010 IN IA NO.3165/2010 IN O.S.750/10. EXT.P5.TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 25.6.2010 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.20514 of 2010-L ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 14th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner from the hands of 3rd respondent and his henchmen. ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to register a crime against the 3rd respondent on the basis of Exhibit P5 complaint.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is running a fancy store at Chalai, Trivandrum. The 3rd respondent was a partner to the business. The business is carried out in a rented shop. The 3rd respondent is an accused in several criminal cases. Petitioner returned the share of Rs.5 lakhs to the 3rd respondent and thereafter the petitioner alone is running the shop. The 3rd respondent in collusion with the landlord attempted to evict the petitioner from the shop room. WPC 20514/2010 -2- Petitioner obtained Ext.P4 injunction order from the Munsiff Court, Trivandrum. It is alleged that infuriated by the same the 3rd respondent is threatening the petitioner to vacate the shop otherwise he will kill the petitioner. On 25.6.2010 he trespassed into the shop room and took Rs.6,250/- from the cash counter forcibly. He further threatened the petitioner that he will kill him if he open the shop. Though complained there is no action, it is submitted. Hence this writ petition. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. 4. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would submit that Ext.P4 is an interlocutory order passed after hearing the parties and what is ordered is 3rd respondent is restrained from forcibly evicting the petitioner from the property. It is pointed out that the petitioner had actually sought for injunction restraining the 3rd respondent from trespassing into the property, but, that has not been granted. He would further submit that the issue as to whether the 3rd respondent has ceased to be a partner is yet to be decided. WPC 20514/2010 -3- According to him, the firm is still in existence and not dissolved. In the nature of the apprehension which has been reflected in the pleadings we dispose of the writ petition by making the interim order absolute. However, we make it clear that we have not pronounced on the contentions of the parties. The civil Court or any other forum before which the question arises between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent shall proceed to decide the issue untramelled by anything contained in this judgment. We further make it clear that we have not pronounced on the issue of possession of the parties and it is for the civil Court to decide. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS