IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 20068 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JUGFER, S/O.SAINUDEEN, AGED 42 YEARS, "GOODWILL HOUSE", NJARAYIKONAM KARA, KADAVOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVASIA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SAINUDEEN, S/O.BAVA MUZALIAR, ATTOOR VALAPPIL, KARIKODU DESOM, KARIKODU VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DT. 2. ABDUL REHIMAN, AGED 57 YEARS, KOLLIPPARAMBAN HOUSE, PERUMBLASSERRY DESOM, NEAR THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, ARAKKURISSI AMSOM, MANNARKKADU TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNARKKADU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 20068/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4064/96 DATED 17.8.1996 OF SRO, MANNARKKAD. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE TAX REMITTANCE RECEIPT AND POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 24.3.2008. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THEPLAINT DATED 24.3.2008 BEFORE THE MANNARKKAD MUNSIFF'S COURT. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.6.2008 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNARKKAD. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.20068 OF 2008-L ----------------------------------------- Dated 16th October, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner has approached this Court, alleging that respondents 1 and 2 and their supporters are trying to widen an existing pathway, which is passing through his property. He moved the civil court and obtained an order of injunction against them. But, violating that order, they are trying to widen the said pathway. When the petitioner attempted to prevent it, he was threatened. He apprehends physical violence against his person. So, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 representation before the police and thereafter, this writ petition is filed, seeking effective protection to his life and property. 2. Since the petitioner has obtained interim order from the civil court, if he requires police protection, he can move that court itself. The said court has power to direct the police to assist the petitioner to WPC 20068/08 2 enforce its interim order. In view of the said remedy available to the petitioner, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. Further, threat to his life emanates only when he visit the disputed property and resist the actions of respondents 1 and 2. There is yet another reason to dismiss this Writ Petition, as notice has not been served on respondents 1 and 2 and notices sent to them were returned, stating that they are not known. In view of the above position, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to approach the civil court for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/