IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2011 / 30TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18449 of 2011(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------------- SIDHARTHAN, S/O.SANKU, PARACKAL, NANNAPPURAM, KARA & VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALIYAR POLICE STATION-685 582. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALIYAR POLICE STATION-685 582. 3. RAJAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, VALLORKATTU HOUSE, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK 685 584. 4. AJEESH RAJAN, S/O.RAJAN, VALLORKATTU HOUSE,VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK 685 584. R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.18449/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION DT.D 22.3.2010 IN IA. 537/2010 P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 1.3.2010 IN IA. 537/2010 IN R.S.A. NO.669/2010. P3:- COPY OF THE SALE DEED DTD. 1.3.2010. P4:- COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD. 26.4.2011. P5:- COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DTD. 10.6.2011. P6:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 24.5.2011 BY THE PETITIONER. P7:- COPY OF THE DECREE IN OS. 39/2002 DTD. 27.3.2004 SUB COURT, THODUPUZHA. P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT.D 9.3.2010 IN IA. 658/2010 IN RSA. NO.669/2009. P9:- COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT. P10:- COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN OS. 30/2002 SUB COURT, THODUPUZHA. P11:- COPY OF THE NOC, DTD. 13.7.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 18449 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose,J. The petitioner who is the respondent in RSA No.669/2009 pending in the Second Appeal jurisdiction of this court has filed this writ petition seeking police protection for construction of a building over that portion of the property, which is the subject matter of the suit leading to the RSA which according to the petitioner, is not in dispute. On the basis of Ext.P2 order passed by this court in the RSA it is argued by Mr.Mathew John that Ext.P2 order will show that sale deed executed in respect of portion of plaint A schedule property excluding the building has been recognised by this court. This recognition according to the learned counsel itself will justify issuance of direction for police protection for construction of the building, arrangements for which have already been made. 2. In the detailed counter affidavit filed by contesting party respondents (appellants in RSA.NO.669/2009) they are WP(C).18449/2011 2 strongly disputing the claim of the petitioner that he has possession or any right over the suit schedule property, the subject matter of the appeal. Learned Government Pleader on the basis of the instructions received from the police officials also submitted that there is subsisting civil dispute between the petitioner and the party respondents over the site where the building is proposed to be constructed. Sri.Mathew John, learned counsel for the petitioner , Sri.T.K.Ahjith Kumar, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and the learned Government Pleader Smt. Charisma addressed us in detail. 3. Having regard to the submissions and having regard to the pleadings raised by the parties and materials placed on record especially Ext.P2, we are of the view that the petitioner will have to seek clarification from this court in RSA.No.669/2009 regarding the construction that he proposes to put up on any portion of the property scheduled to the suit. So far as we can see, under Ext.P2 reliefs have been granted only to the appellant and no findings are entered in favour of the petitioner in respect of the portion of the property covered by the sale deed. We decline jurisdiction and dispose of the writ petition directing the WP(C).18449/2011 3 petitioner to move this court by appropriate application in RSA.No.669/09 for clarification. If it becomes necessary, it will be open to the petitioner to seek the reliefs sought for in the writ petition on the basis of the clarifications received, by initiating fresh proceedings. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).18449/2011 4