IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2265 of 2011(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MOHANACHANDRAN PILLAI, PRATHEESHAYIL VEEDU, KOTTAKKAKOM MURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM, PIN-691 001. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN-690 518. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVARA, KOLLAM, PIN-691 583. 4. PRAVEEN M., THOYITHALA COMPOUND, MENAMPPALLY MURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN-691 583. 5. RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, THOYITHALA COMPOUND, MENAMPPALLY MURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN-691 583. 6. SASIKUMAR, THARAMEL VEEDU, KOTTAKKAKOM, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN-691 583. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. CHARISHMA R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI. M.R. SASITH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.2265/2011 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.387 OF 2010 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY DTD. 14/07/2010. P2: COPY OF ORDER OF INJUNCTION IN I.A.NO.1566/2010 IN O.S.NO.387 OF 2010 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY DTD. 4/11/2010. P3: COPY OF THE I.A.NO.1749 OF 2010 IN O.S.NO.387/2010 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY. P4: COPY OF THE PETITION IN I.A.NO.1762 OF 2010 IN O.S.NO.387/2010 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY. P5: COPY OF COMPLAINT SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD 17/01/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Civil) No.2265 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 Judgment Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this court seeking issue of directions to respondents 1 to 3 under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure that police protection be afforded to the petitioner for the peaceful enjoyment of his property and against causing any threat to the life and person of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the father of the 4th respondent. Respondent No.6 is the younger brother of the petitioner. Respondent No.5 is the father-in-law of the 4th respondent. The wife of the petitioner expired on 21.6.2010. The spouses have two children, i.e., the 4th respondent and another married son. Both the children are married and employed. According to the petitioner, his wife had executed a registered Will dated 27.10.2009. On the strength of that Will, after the death of his wife, the petitioner is in exclusive possession of the properties which belonged to his wife. He has his own properties also. The WPC 2265/2011 2 petitioner is living in the property after the death of his wife. The 4th respondent, the son of the petitioner, is claiming one-third share in his property. The petitioner was, in these circumstances obliged to file Ext.P1 suit. The suit is pending. An order of interim injunction is passed in that suit (Ext.P2) restraining respondents 4 and 5 from trespassing into the property. According to the petitioner, subsequent to the passing of the order, the party respondents had taken law into their hands and had dispossessed the petitioner. The petitioner has already filed complaint before the court to take action against the party respondents for violating the order of injunction and also for issue of directions by the civil court to afford police protection to the petitioner. Admittedly those petitions are pending and have not been disposed of. 3. The petitioner now has a grievance that respondents 4 to 6 are causing threat to his life and person. They are not permitting him to enjoy the fruits of Ext.P2 order. He has a further grievance that under the influence of respondents 4 to 6, police are compelling him to withdraw the civil proceedings initiated by him. The police want him not to claim rights under WPC 2265/2011 3 the Will executed by his wife. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this court seeking directions for police protection against wanton, culpable and violent acts of respondents 4 to 6 and also for directions to police officials not to intervene in the civil dispute between the parties. 4. Respondents 4 and 5 had entered appearance through counsel. According to respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner is not in possession of the property. According to them, the petitioner is attempting to steal a march over the party respondents by making attempt to secure an order for police protection. Petition seeking directions for police aid to enforce the order of injunction has already been filed and is pending. Action for alleged violation of the order of injunction is also pending before the court which passes Ext.P2 order. At this juncture, it is not necessary or proper for the police to intervene in the dispute nor is it necessary for this court to issue any directions to the police. The petitioner may be directed to seek remedy from the civil court in the pending petitions for violation of the injunction order and for enforcement of the order of injunction with the aid of the police. No directions are necessary to be issued now, contends the WPC 2265/2011 4 learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. 5. We turned to the learned Government Pleader for his submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that the police have no intention to interfere in the civil dispute between the parties. If the civil court issues any directions, the same shall be scrupulously implemented. At this juncture, the police have no intention to interfere in the civil dispute between the parties. The learned Government Pleader further submits that it is incorrect to say that the petitioner was vexed or harassed by the police to withdraw the civil litigation initiated by him against his son and others. In these circumstances, this petition may be dismissed, submits the learned Government Pleader. 6. We do take note of all the relevant circumstances. The civil court is seized of the matter. Whether there has been trespass subsequent to the filing of the petition; whether police aid should be given to enforce the order of injunction etc. will have to be decided by the civil court in accordance with law. We are not in these circumstances persuaded to issue any specific directions in this writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the civil WPC 2265/2011 5 court may be directed to dispose of the pending petitions for police aid and for action for violation of the order of injunction expeditiously. The petitioner can make that request to the court concerned. We have no reason to assume that the court will not accept the said request. With the above observation, this petition is dismissed. R.BASANT, JUDGE. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. srd WPC 2265/2011 6 WPC 2265/2011 7