IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2009 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13803 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- KOSHI PHILIP, MUNDANIKUNNATHIL HOUSE, KUTTIKONAM, VILAKUDY VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR SRI.N.SREEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR. 4. K. RAJAN, NIKHIL BHAVAN, ELAMPAL.P.O, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI. A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 13803 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th May, 2009. JUDGMENT Surendra Mohan, J. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.26/2009 of the Munsiff's Court, Punalur. The fourth respondent herein is the defendant in the suit. The suit was filed seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the fourth respondent from trespassing into the property of the plaintiff and from making any constructions therein. In the said suit, as per order in I.A.97/2009 an order of temporary injunction has been passed in favour of the petitioner which is evidenced by Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent has started a construction in the property in violation of the order of injunction. The construction has been started in spite of the fact that no order of stay has been obtained in C.M.A.4/2009 filed by the fourth respondent before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara against Ext.P1 order. The petitioner further alleges that the fourth respondent has threatened the life and property of the petitioner and therefore, seeks directions to the Police , to ensure protection to his life and property from the illegal WPC 13803/2009 2 acts of the fourth respondent and also for maintaining Ext.P1 injunction order. 2. The dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent is essentially a civil dispute. The dispute is the subject matter of the suit O.S.26/2009. Ext.P1 order of injunction is under challenge in CMA 4/2009 before the Sub Court. The Civil Court is sufficiently empowered to enforce its orders. The petitioner has adequate and effective alternative remedies before the Civil Court to enforce his rights. The only excuse put forward by the petitioner is that he is not able to approach the Civil Court because of the summer holidays. The Courts are reopening on 21.5.2009. The petitioner has no explanation why he could not approach the vacation court under Section 19 of the Civil Courts Act. There is no justification for issuing an order of Police protection in disputes that are pending before the Civil Courts. Therefore, the above writ petition is dismissed reserving the rights of the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for necessary reliefs, in appropriate WPC 13803/2009 3 proceedings. Needless to say that the Police shall take all necessary steps to ensure that law and order is maintained at all times. V. GIRI Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: