IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 11TH MAY 2010 / 21ST VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14747 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SUJITH MATHEW, NEW LAND TRAVELS, TVS BUILDING,CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE MANAGER, INDUS IND BANK LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.14747 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF MAY, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers. “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 2nd respondent to seize the vehicle KL/01/AP 2226 from the illegal custody of the 1st respondent and hand over possession of the vehicle to the petitioner without any delay. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 2nd respondent to initiate appropriate proceedings against the 1st respondent and his men and agents who committed the illegal act of seizure in violation to the order issued by the Munsiff's Court, Chengannur. W.P.(C)No.14747/10 -2- (iii) issue appropriate direction to the 1st respondent to hand over possession of vehicle KL/01/AP 2226 to the petitioner without any delay. 2. The ground projected in the Writ Petition for moving the vacation court is that the petitioner is not in a position to move the civil court in furtherance of the relief/order already passed in I.A.No.545/2010 in O.S.No.102/2010 of the Munsiff's Court, Chengannur. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the civil court has granted an interim order of injunction which is said to be flouted by the respondents. 3. Obviously, the relief sought for in the Writ Petition is with regard to a civil dispute and the idea and understanding of the petitioner as to the sustainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is wrong and misconceived. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the violation of the interim order of injunction granted by the civil court as per Exhibit P3, there is a specific remedy provided to the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the C.P.C. W.P.(C)No.14747/10 -3- In the above circumstances, no interference is warranted in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to move the civil court in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE dsn