IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 30931 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.A. NARAYANA PODUVAL, CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, PODUVAL PROPERTIES PVT LTD., ISAVASAYAM, HOSPITAL ROAD, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR - 670 307. 2. PODUVAL PROPERTIES (P) LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.A. NARAYANA PODUVAL, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR -07. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH, SRI.V.J.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYYANNUR. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, PAYYANNUR. 4. UTHAMANTHIL NARAYANAN, SECRETARY, VIDYA MANDIR COLLEGE, THAYATHUVAYAL PERUMBA, PAYYANNUR AMSOM, KOKKANISSERY DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 5. S.K. MUHAMMED, PAYYANNUR MUNICIPAL COUNCILLOR, THAYATHUVAYAL, PERUMBA, PAYYANNUR, KOKKANISSERY DESOM, TALUPARAMBA TALUK. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPIN DAS ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN OS 99/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR DT. 18.6.08. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF IA 752/08 IN OS 99/08 DT.18.6.2008. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER ON IA 1661/08 IN OS 99/08 DT. 12.12.08. EXT.P4 TRUE COP7Y OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 IN OS. 99/2008 DT. NIL. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT. 15.10.09 BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DT. 16.10.09 ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING OF EXT.P5 COMPLAINT. K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 30931 of 2009 J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The first petitioner is the Chairman and Managing Director of the second petitioner company. The case of the first petitioner in brief is as follows: The company is the absolute owner of 52 cents of property. There is a small pathway on the eastern side of the property. Respondents 4 and 5 trespassed into the property and demolished the compound wall and also cut some trees for widening the pathway. The second petitioner filed a civil suit as O.S.No. 99 of 2008 before the Sub Court, Payyannur. Ext.P2 application for prohibitory injunction was also filed, which was allowed. Though the petitioner company filed an application for interim mandatory injunction against respondents 4 and 5, it was dismissed. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 complaint before the third respondent which was acknowledged as per Ext.P6 receipt. W.P.(C).No. 30931 of 2009 2 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. According to respondents 4 and 5, they are not obstructing the petitioner. 4. In such circumstances this Writ Petition is disposed of directing that if there is obstruction or threat by respondents 4 and 5 as against the property of the second petitioner, which is covered by Exts.P1 and P2, from respondents 4 and 5, respondents 1 to 3 will provide adequate protection to the petitioner. Needless to say, it will continue as long as the order of injunction is there. We make it abundantly clear that we have not pronounced on the merits of the contention of the parties, viz. second petitioner on the one hand and respondents 4 and 5 on the other, in the civil suit. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm