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 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20074 of 2008(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- KUMARAN SASIDHARAN ,PADMINI NIVASIL ULAVAKKATTU MURI PALAMEL VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADOOR 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADOOR POLICE STATION 3. RATNAKUMARI, VISWABHAVANATHIL ELAMPALLI MURI PALLICKAL VILLAGE. 4. OMANA, VISWABHAVANATHIL, ELAMPALLI MURI PALLICKAL VILLAGE. 5. VINESH, VISWABHAVANATHIL, ELAMPALLI MURI PALLICKAL VILLAGE. 6. VISWANATHAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN VINESH NILAYATHIL THENGAMAM MURI, PALLICKAL VILLAGE ADOOR TALUK BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20074 OF 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner is the owner of a property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. The 3rd respondent is the wife of the vendor of the petitioner. She was pursuing her claim for maintenance before the Family Court against her husband. Pending the said claim, the property has been transferred. According to the 3rd respondent, there was an attachment of the property by the Family Court. The 3rd respondent also claims that she is in possession and enjoyment of the property. According to her, the transfer has been made, to defeat her claim. After the purchase of the property, under Ext.P1 sale deed, when that the petitioner went there, he was obstructed by respondents 3 to 6. Therefore, he moved the civil court by filing O.S.No.9/2008. He also filed I.A. No.25/2008 in that suit claiming an injunction against the respondents against trespass and committing waste. The defendants in that suit, who are respondents 3 to 5 in this writ petition, filed a counter injunction application. Both the Interlocutory Applications were heard and disposed of by Ext.P2 W.P.(C) No.20074/2008 2 order. The petitioner's I.A was allowed and the I.A filed by the defendants was dismissed. After the said order, when the petitioner went to the property, he found that the respondents are tapping the rubber trees there and taking the latex. When the petitioner tried to prevent that, he was threatened by the respondents. Therefore, he filed Ext.P4 representation before the police claiming necessary protection. Since the police did not take any action, this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i) call for the records relating to Ext.P1 to P3 and issue a writ or appropriate direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner's life as well as the property covered by Ext.P2 order of injunction, including the petitioner's liberty to go to the property. ii) issue a writ or appropriate direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to take necessary action against the respondents 3 to 5 and to prevent any law and order situation in the property. iii) issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case. 2. Going by Ext.P4 representation before the police, it is clear that petitioner's grievance is that the party respondents W.P.(C) No.20074/2008 3 herein are acting in violation of Ext.P2 interim order of the civil court. When the petitioner tried to prevent the violation of that order, he was threatened also. For the violation of the interim order of a civil court, the petitioner has to move the very same court for appropriate reliefs. He cannot not walk into the next police station, claiming police protection for enforcement of an order of a civil court. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on an observation of the Supreme Court in P.R.Muralidharan and others v. Swami Dharmananda Theerthapadar and others [2006 (4) SCC 501], said that since the order of the civil court is violated, he can approach the police for necessary police protection. We notice that the said observation is only an obiter dicta and the said observation has to be understood in the light of the well settled principles of law. We had occasion to consider the observation made by the Apex Court in that decision, which is relied on by the petitioner, in W.P.(C) No.17400/2008. Going by Ext.P4, violation simpliciter of an interim order of civil court is alleged. In such circumstances, the petitioner has effective remedies before the civil court concerned. Whether an injunction order has been violated or not W.P.(C) No.20074/2008 4 is itself a civil dispute which the civil court alone can adjudicate upon. No statue in force in the State confers jurisdiction on the police to consider whether an injunction order has been violated and to take consequential action if violation is found. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to our notice that the decision in Howrah Mills Co.Ltd. and another v. MD. Shamin and others [2006(5)SCC 539]. The said decision does not have any application to the facts of the case. Finally the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of this Court in M/s Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2007(4)KLT 540] submitted that the remedy of moving the civil court in this case is not efficacious. 4. We are of the view that, the facts of this case have no comparison, whatsoever, with the facts of the case in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala. That was a case in which a large contingent of people raising a political slogan trespassed into the rubber estate of the petitioner therein and they were not having any semblance of right or interest over that property. W.P.(C) No.20074/2008 5 Having regard to the facts of this case, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy before the civil court to redress his grievance. Further, the police have no power to redress his grievance of violation of the interim injunction order passed by the civil court. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move the civil court for appropriate reliefs. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps