IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36568 of 2010(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- USMAN, S/O.CHULLIYIL MUHAMMED, ERNAD TALUK,CHERUKAVU AMSOM, POST IKKARAPPADY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 637, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER CHULLIYIL ABDUL SALAM, S/O.CHULLIYIL MOHAMMED, ERNAD TALUK, CHERUKAVU AMSOM,POST IKKARAPPADY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 637. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM-676 505. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505. 4. USMAN, S/O.CHOLAKKARA KUNHAVARAN, TIRURANGADI TALUK, CHELEMBRA AMSOM, POST CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 634. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.36568 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.JOSEPH,J The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate police assistance to the petitioner to prevent the illegal and high handed action of the 4th respondent and his men. b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take effective steps to enforce Ext.P2 order of the Hob'ble Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi. A direction is also sought to take necessary steps to prevent the 4th respondent and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of his property. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: 3. The petitioner is the absolute owner of 10.500 cents which he obtained by way of registered sale deed No.3762/2001 W.P.C.No.36568 of 2010 2 of Thenhipalam S.R.O. The 4th respondent has no right over the said property. 4th respondent's property is situated on the south- western side of the petitioner's property. He purchased it from the brother of the petitioner. He is the close neighbour of the petitioner. It is alleged, inter alia that the 4th respondent trespassed into the petitioner's property and cut open a road through the middle of the petitioner's property. It was resisted by the petitioner. The petitioner filed O.S.No.201/2010 and obtained an interlocutory order restraining the 4th respondent from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and committing any waste in the property until further orders. It is also stated that the order was extended until further orders by the learned Munsiff after hearing the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. The petitioner has also filed an application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property and to submit a report. Ext.P3 is the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. It is also alleged that the 4th respondent has filed another suit as O.S.No.148/2010 against the petitioner's brothers. In the said suit, the 4th respondent is not claiming any right in respect of petitioner's property. The petitioner submitted Exts.P6 and P7 representations. Finding no W.P.C.No.36568 of 2010 3 action on the same, the petitioner has come before us. 4. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that two suits are pending. 5. Having considered the case of the petitioner and having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that it may not be appropriate for this Court to interfere in the matter. The petitioner has already obtained an interim order. He alleges that the order has been passed after hearing both sides. If the order has been passed after hearing both sides, it is open to the petitioner to seek police protection before the court which passed the order. If the petitioner moves any such application for enforcing the order passed, necessarily the court must take a decision in the matter without any delay after hearing both sides. 6. With these observations and relegating the petitioner to approach the civil court, this writ petition is dismissed. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.36568 of 2010 4 W.P.C.No.36568 of 2010 5 W.P.C.No.36568 of 2010 6 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010