IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 25082 of 2010(T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SARMILA, W/O.ASHOK KUMAR, 'ASWATHI' H.NO.285, VAIDYASALA NAGAR, ASRAMAM P.O. KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOLLAM EAST CIRCLE OFFICE, KOLLAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 3. KUNJU KRISHNA S/O.PULLAN,PANNACHAN VEEDU, KANNIMEL CHERRY, KILIKOLLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM - 691 004. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R3 BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.25082/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.672/07 IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.MUNSIFF, KOLLAM DATED 27/08/2008. P2 COPY OF THE OZHIPPU KACHEETTU IN E.P.NO.273/08 IN O.S.NO.672/07 OF THE KOLLAM MUNSIFF COURT DATED 31/03/2009. P3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.3470/10 DATED 03/02/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT. P4 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT WITH PETITION IN I.A.NO.1274/10 IN O.S.NO.194/10 DATED 04/03/2010. P5 COPY OF THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ORDER IN I.N.NO.1274/10 IN O.S.NO.194/10 DATED 29/03/2010. P6 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19/05/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P6(A) COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30/05/2010 TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.25082 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has a sad tale of woes to narrate. She had an item of property measuring about 4 cents. That property was trespassed upon and was reduced to the possession of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner went to court with a suit for recovery of possession. Ext.P1 judgment was passed in the said proceedings. The petitioner's prayer for recovery was allowed. The petitioner took out execution and by Ext.P2 order, through court the property was recovered from the possession of the 3rd respondent and was entrusted to the petitioner. 2. Obstruction to enjoyment of property continued. The petitioner came to this Court seeking directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to afford police protection to her. That petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment. The petitioner was directed to approach the competent civil court and seek appropriate relief. W.P(C) No.25082 of 2010 2 3. The petitioner did go to the civil court again. O.S.No.194 of 2010 was filed by her against the 3rd respondent. She secured Ext.P5 interim order. According to the petitioner, in spite of Ext.P5 order, there was continued obstruction from the 3rd respondent to the enjoyment of the property by the petitioner. She had occasions to complain to the police. No effective action was taken. Subsequently O.S.No.194 of 2010 has been finally disposed of and a decree for injunction, as prayed for, has been granted to the petitioner vide the judgment dated 30.07.2010 in O.S.No.194 of 2010. That judgment has now become final without challenge. A copy of the same has later been produced. In spite of that, obstructions are continuing. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that directions under Article 226 of the Constitution may be issued to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to the petitioner to enjoy the property delivered to her under Ext.P2 and in respect of which, the decree in O.S.No.194 of 2010 has been passed and which has become final. 4. Respondent No.3 has entered appearance. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the 3rd respondent has no intention to physically obstruct the enjoyment of the property by the petitioner. It is true that no appeal has W.P(C) No.25082 of 2010 3 been filed. That does not mean that the appeal will not or cannot be filed in future. Until such an appeal is filed and interim orders are secured from the appellate court by the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent shall not in any way interfere with the rights of the petitioner over the property in question, undertakes the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 5. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 1 and 2 submits that respondents 1 and 2 are now convinced that O.S.No.194 of 2010 has been disposed of finally in favour of the petitioner and that judgment and decree have now become final without challenge. In these circumstances, the police shall afford adequate protection to the petitioner to enjoy the property delivered to her under Ext.P2 and in respect of which, she has secured the decree in O.S.No.194 of 2010. 6. No civil dispute virtually survives now. The police is bound to respect and give effect to decrees of civil courts. We accept the undertaking of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner shall be afforded adequate police protection to enjoy the property delivered to her under Ext.P2 in respect of which decree has been passed in O.S.No.194 of 2010. We accept W.P(C) No.25082 of 2010 4 that submission of the learned Government Pleader. The petitioner shall be afforded adequate protection to enjoy the property without any obstruction from the 3rd respondent. 7. This Writ petition is, in these circumstances, allowed to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/