IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 CRP.No. 4 of 2009() ------------------- OS.174/1984 of M.C.,PARAPPANANGADI .................... REVN. PETITIONER S/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS --------------------- 1. ALANGADAN KUNHAVARU, S/O.ALASSANKUTTY HAJI, PARAPPUR AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. 2. PATTARKADAVAN KUNHATHUMMA, W/O.ALANGADAN KUNHAVARU, DO.DO. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS --------------- 1. KUNHIPATHUMMA.K., W/O.KOOTHUMADAN SAIDALU, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. 2. KOOTHUMADAN KADIYAKUTTY D/O.KOOTHUMADAN SAIDALU, W/O.PARIYARATHU MUHAMMED RANDATHANI AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. 3. KOOTHUMADAN KUNHAYISUMMA, D/O.KOOTHUMADAN SAIDALU, W/O.NADAKKAVIL HAMSA, KARUMPURAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. 4. KOOTHUMADAN FATHIMAKUTTY D/O.KOOTHUMADAN SAIDALU, W/O.MACHINCHERI ABDUL RAHIMAN RAMADATHANI AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. 5. KOOTHUMADAN SAINABHA, D/O.SAIDALU, W/O.ALANGADAN SAIDALU, ANANTHAVUR AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. MALAPPURAM 6. KOOTHUMADAN MUHAMMEDKUTTY S/O.SAIDALU, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. R1 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY AND SMT.ANITHA M.N. (EKM) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA.NO. 14/09 IN CRP 4/09 DISMISSED 23/3/2009 SD/-M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,JUDGE. //True copy// PA to Judge. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ C.R.P.NO. 4 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 23RD March 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order dated 6/12/2008 on the file of Munsiff court, Parappanangadi in E.A.215/2008. Petitioners are decree holders in O.S.174/1984. Decree for injunction restraining respondents from trespassing into decree schedule property was granted in A.S.15/1988 by Sub court, Tirur filed by petitioners challenging dismissal of the suit. That decree was confirmed in S.A.621/1993. E.P.132/2008 filed by petitioners is pending before Munsiff court, Parappanangadi. When that execution petition was pending, petitioners filed W.P.C.25119/2008 before this court seeking police protection which was disposed by judgment dated 28/8/2002 directing petitioners to approach the executing court as execution petition is pending. It is thereafter E.A.215/2008 was filed by petitioners seeking police protection to them for enjoyment of CRP 4/09 2 plaint schedule property. Learned Munsiff dismissed the application as per impugned order. It is challenged in this petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and respondents were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that in spite of the decree respondents are obstructing petitioners from enjoying the property and therefore learned Munsiff should have granted police protection. Learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that petitioners have filed objection before the executing court denying the allegation raised in the petition stating that they did not cause any obstruction or attempted to trespass. Learned counsel also submitted that respondents in fact instituted O.S.49/2008 before Sub court, Tirur seeking decree for recovery of possession of the very same decree schedule property from petitioners admitting possession of the petitioners and in such circumstances there is no necessity to grant police protection. 4. It is clear from the submission made by the counsel on either side that apart from the decree obtained by the petitioners, respondents themselves CRP 4/09 3 admitted possession of the petitioners and instituted O.S.49/2008 before Sub court, Parappanangadi seeking recovery of possession. Therefore, respondents cannot object to the possession of decree schedule property by petitioners or its enjoyment by them. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to grant police protection as sought for. But it is made clear that if respondents causes obstruction to the entry of petitioners to the decree schedule property petitioners are at liberty to file a petition before Sub Inspector of police. In that event police to provide necessary protection. Executing court is also directed to dispose execution petition as expeditiously as possible. C.R.P is disposed of accordingly. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.